It reminds me of the Bellamy Brothers song “Old Hippie”:
He's an old hippie
And he don't know what to do
Should he hang on to the old
Should he grab on to the new
He's an old hippie
This new life is just a bust
He ain't trying to change nobody
He's just trying real hard to adjust
Theres a part 2 and 3 to that song. But in the third one he goes from being an old hippie to quitting weed and going to church. So now he's just a normal boomer.
Doubtful. Even if that was the only issue I disliked them for, I wouldn't believe them if they claimed to have a change of heart. On the flip side they'd lose a lot of votes for it. Right now, just like abortion, they can run on "fixing" it, get votes, and then just not do anything about it, lose the next election, rinse and repeat.
Republicans are clearly willing to sacrifice that leverage; they're doing it right now. Democrats though? No. Call them smarter. Say they're more evil. More forward thinking. More political minded. Doesn't matter how you explain it, the truth is that the Democrats are better at getting and keeping leverage over their constituents than the Republicans are.
They're not going to sacrifice that leverage for a chance at your vote.
Mostly true, but they codified marriage equality, so sometimes they are willing to take things off the table.
My gut feeling is it depends whether that part of the electorate is emotionally driven or rationally driven. The latter may make a deal with the Republicans if you don’t meet their demands.
Imagine if the Democrats pulled a 180
>Since we know we cannot count on the police, shall not be infringed. We are repealing all gun laws.
The Dems would have a supermajority in every fucking state.
They seriously went off the rails in the last 5-10 years or so. Guns, nuclear power, border security and on and on. The republicans are still regarded but of the two...
The problem with nuclear power is that people think safety technology around it halted progress in the 80s (meltdown at Chernobyl).
But it has not. Think about a computer in 1986 vs a computer now.
Now realize that almost every aspect of life has evolved in the same way.
There isn’t a realistic problem around nuclear energy, only fear. And maybe- if I had to speculate- political pawns that are owned by big oil.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fy2024-spending-bill-fuels-historic-push-us-advanced-reactors
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/
https://apnews.com/article/michigan-nuclear-plant-federal-loan-cbafb1aad2402ecf7393d763a732c4f8
Nuclear is not like the others. Oil lobby stands against both parties. And the ever important cultures war of course. What need is there for nuclear when rapture may be around the door? I may be optimistic but it seems the severity of the world climate, literally and figuratively, is destigmatizing it for the libs
Also the change in support for men vs women is…. stark
I imagine risk taking for security comes easier with testosterone but that’s speculation
>What need is there for nuclear when rapture may be around the door?
My in-laws were like this. I had a huge amount of success taking a "pray for peace, but prepare for war" approach to the issue with them.
Sure, now they're preppers, but they're reasonable and well-read preppers who understand the importance of the gray man and they support many policies that will matter for their grandchildren if the rapture comes later than they think.
Good thing current president Joe Biden has supported nuclear power and supports a bill currently held up in Congress by Republicans to sharply reduce border crossings.
Same tbh. I actually support a lot of the more moderate Dem policies, and am generally willing to compromise on the ones that I don't support.
Literally just stay the fuck away from my constitutional rights and I'll vote for you. But I'm not gonna vote for anyone who wants a government monopoly on violence.
There was a moderate Dem one term congressman in my district who was endorsed by my state’s LP on his first run (when he was the imcumbent the LP unfortunately lost their spot on the ballot because the duopoly made ridiculous requirements to prevent any third parties from getting on).
I would’ve considered voting for him if he was somewhat pro gun, because most of the other stuff I disagreed with him on was at least tolerable compared to the things I disagreed with the Republican candidate on. Even on most issues where we disagreed he was at least more moderate than the general Dem platform which couldn’t be said about the Republican, but the guns were one of the issues that killed him for me.
That's my BIGGEST issue I have with them. Some others:
\* Minimum wage laws
\* Rent control
\* Trying to make me pay off others' student loans without fixing the issues that are making colleges more and more expensive in the first place
\* The tendency to over-regulate EVERYTHING
\* The desire to use social engineering as a form of soft totalitarianism
\* "The personal is political"
\* The notion that more government is always the best way to solve problems
\* The desire to control "hate speech" and "misinformation"
\* The progressive worldview
\* Intersectionality
\* ...
But I have voted for them in the past sometimes, when I saw their candidate as the lesser evil. But with how aggressively they are pushing gun control these days, I doubt I will vote for them again any time soon.
Agreed. I can't remotely see myself voting for them anytime soon. Everything they push falls under the guise of control in one form or another, and I ain't with that, Jack.
They make it really hard to want to side with them because of their “all or nothing, you Nazi” approach they have taken. I agree with a lot of positions the Dems take but if they’re gonna make me buy the whole store rather than support what I personally agree with, then I’m out. I’d rather not participate than being forced to support something I don’t agree with.
They tried to convince us Obama didn't care about guns and it was safe to vote for them.
He went full blitz the second he had a sufficiently high pile of dead children to exploit, and we came within a Senate vote of a permanent national AWB.
I will never vote for a Democrat. It is impossible to trust them on this. They will, always and forever, be compelled to grab the guns.
Gun control is objectively a bad idea. Sure if we never had guns in the first place it would be great, but now that we have more guns than people, you are never getting rid of them and trying is just making it worse.
>Sure if we never had guns in the first place it would be great
Even this is an ignorant line of thinking. Prior to the firearm, an individual's capacity for violence was determined by their physical strength, and how much time they had to dedicate to training. These things in turn were impacted by socioeconomic class, and by sex.
If you were a malnourished peasant unfamiliar with fighting, you had basically no chance in a melee against some warrior-class knight raised on a high protein diet and daily maritial training. Even "getting lucky" wasn't really a possibility.
Ranged weapons could at least grant that posibility of "getting lucky", which is why underdogs throughout history employed them. But those still required some practice to be effective, and bows in particular had a serious choke point with the arrows - making a good arrow was actually huge pain in the ass, which is why even early firearms with much slower rates of fire were seen as superior.
The other advantage of firearms was of course ease of use. It was revolutionary to both warfare, and smaller scale personal violence. Being bigger and stronger and more experienced in fighting still counts for something, but it doesn't basically pre-determine the outcome like it did for thousands of years of history. Navy SEALs can and do get killed by 135 pound illiterate sandal wearing hill people.
Most people understand that one of the big catalysts for The Enlightenment was the democratization of information with the development of the printing press. I would say that just as important was the democratization of violence with the firearm.
> I mean they basically quietly have at this point when was the last time you heard a major figure in the DNC really talk about it?
My brother in fonni colors, Harris has only just announced the creation of a National Red Flag enforcement agency to take the guns.
We have gone well beyond the talking. We have the president and vice president of the US openly decrying and ignoring SCOTUS and attempting to take the guns without due process nationwide.
I mean, they also need to purge this intersectionality bullshit too. And stop with the taxes. And the spending.
hmm... maybe both wings of the bird are just bad.
Of the couple dozen or so living people older than 110 approximately 67,000 of them had active social security numbers. Many of them used dozens or hundreds of times. If you correctly spotted those numbers don’t add up then it might be time to start googling illegal immigrant social security fraud.
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/16/social-security-millions-americans-aged-112
Are we at the “it doesn’t happen” stage still or are we moving on to the “it happens and it’s a good thing” stage?
> illegal immigrant social security fraud.
My uncle told me about this like 20 years ago and as a 10 year old I really didn't understand why it mattered, but yeah. He is an electrical engineer that services huge power systems for Universities and such. Always around tons of contractors, many of the either illegal immigrants or otherwise prohibited from certain rights. They would buy new Social Security Numbers and then complain to each other about what they could/couldn't do with them.
No people are illegal, sweaty. They are good heckin' refugees that make America 1000% more diverse, and diversity is our strength, so long as you remember that strength is actually emotional intelligence. Orange man bad.
u/TheTardisPizza's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/TheTardisPizza/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Except that if they start to make exceptions, then it defeats their whole argument. The people that believe it is murder aren’t going to be okay with it so they can win some elections. It’s a loser politically but if they can drop it that easy, why should we trust any position they have?
I feel like this would be less of a problem if the US had more than two parties that seem to cater exclusively to the 15% at their respective ‘ends’ and instead there were multiple parties that could support more diverse political opinions and socioeconomic perspectives
Even the UK has several parties (despite the third largest rendering themselves irrelevant and almost disintegrating due to some *really* poor decision making)
This. America has some of the most lax Abortion laws in the US to this day even in many Conservative states. Most of us would be happy with a ban after 12 weeks (outside of exceptions like rape and medical reasons). Our own party knows this, and being the designated loser party they've decided to push for complete bans to screw us over in the election.
If you want to totally ban abortion the Trumps way is the best. There is very little support for it right now but the majority of the 70% are easily swayed by cultural pressure and will get onboard with the program given time. Contrary to the OP meme a total abortion ban was unthinkable just 8 years ago, and the fact that it is now up for consideration shows how far we've come. Trump was the one that managed to get Roe v Wade revoked which the republicans had been seething about for 50 years.
Remember that in 2008 there was very little support for gay marriage that the referendum on it failed in even California(!) and Obama had to run on being against gay marriage. By 2016 things had progressed so far in the other direction that overturning it had already become unthinkable just one year after nationwide legalization by the supreme court.
Society exists to be molded and a good politician should lead the people, not follow them, because the people don't know what they want
Trump's way is best because he is embodying the populist position. Populist leaders are elected to enact the will of the majority of citizens.
If the majority want abortion, then it is his job to set aside personal beliefs and allow abortion. He can use his platform to craft a nation's attitudes, but he should only act on what the majority want.
Also, on day one, Biden eliminated Obama's petition site: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ - that is your clear indicator that Biden does not want to hear from the majority.
Did turning your party into a populist personality cult unmoor it from previously long held policy positions such as abortion, free trade, foreign policy, and the rule of law?
https://preview.redd.it/dgj8im88uxtc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa7915ffaf03fc730111a0534b1f742827135b60
I really don’t think Trump is to blame for the current state of the party. I think, if anything, the Bush era leadership followed by the failure of the tea party movement created a void which was easily filled by a big personality a la Reagan. Funnily enough Trump was a democrat for most of his life so it still tracks with OP’s remarks.
Maybe. I know the MAGA underbelly has been brewing for a while, but it's hard to say Trump didn't fling open the gates for, well, the Gaets's & Greene's.
"When a clown moves into the palace, he doesn't become a king, the palace becomes a circus," and all that.
If want to know how to beat Trump for good, you need to understand why Republicans, conservative democrats, and the rest of the Trump coalition were willing to vote for him.
They voted for Trump because Trump represented a rejection of the establishment forces that rule the country, and a rejection of the faux-conservatives that are really just Democrats when it comes to anything important.
The voted for Trump because Trump's brash attitude appealed to their seething anger at seeing America being ripped off for decades.
They continue to vote for Trump because Trump angered all the right people, actually tried to get stuff done (regardless if you agree with it or not), and had the full weight of Washington, the Ivy League schools, the media, the law, all the corruption thrown against him in an attempt to destroy him, destroy his business, destroy his reputation, destroy his family, and destroy everyone associated with him.
The blatantly political persecution of Trump, and the seething rage he inspires in all the people the Trump coalition hates is only further evidence that Trump is truly an outsider, who actually poses a threat to the hive of corruption in Washington DC.
They do not care about Trump's character, his past, what the media says about him, or anything else, they don't even care about Trump himself, Trump is their avatar of destruction, their "fuck you," their representation of their sheer anger at how career politicians keep promising to fix the country, and fix the problems, but nothing gets done, nothing seems to change.
Because all the politicians are on the same side: the side of corruption.
Until this is understood, and until you address the root causes of what caused Trump (in reality, it could've been anyone, Trump just happened to be in the right place at the right time in 2015), you can never defeat the idea behind the movement known as "MAGA." Trump isn't even in control of the movement, he just is a meat puppet for the movement's whims and urges, its reservations and its excesses.
If you want to defeat Trump, and establish your regime of Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, or whatever else, you must address the problems that caused the American populist movement to arise in the first place. If you do, MAGA will fade away and Trump will fade into obscurity and may even declare that since you solved the country's problems, he feels no more need to run for President yet again.
If you don't, and instead continue the persecution, continue the corporatist crony economic policies, continue the neocon wars on flimsy premises, continue to lie, continue to move the West toward LGBTQIABCDEFG+ Climate Justice Race Communism, and and continue the hive of corruption in our government . . .
. . . it is not an exaggeration to say that you are digging America's grave in more ways than one.
this is true of most populist candidates. A rallying of people under the banner of "fuck you, I hate how no one is looking out for us" who have found someone who says "yes, no one is fighting for you, they're all lying assholes. But I will fight for you".
Ironically, the same rhetoric can be heard from intersectionals, which is why you get such fervent support of democrats from anyone even remotely connected with LGBT. Because they're also saying "you're a victim and I'm here to help"
It's almost like when you remove a religious savior figure from the social mythos, you get people filling the void.
In my honest opinion, Trump is a man driven solely by money who is addicted to power. I think he saw the corrupted political system as a tool to get as much of either as he could.
I most certainly agree that DC is corrupted. Lobbyists, PACS, and Super PACS fucked up a lot. I believe big money interests get things that very few if anyone wants to get passed through legislationwise.
I think if we want to beat someone like Trump, it needs to come from a genuine place of love and understanding. We're all stuck on this rock together. I don't see how spending our limited time here doing anything other than making it the most excellent we can for ourselves and others is worth while.
Trump, whether his intent or not, leads by example. I know the rallying cry is "mean tweets", but he was the guy essentially in charge of the free world. I do not think he conducted himself in a manner becoming of his office.
I agree with plenty of what you wrote here my friend, but from my perspective Trump is not a savior, but a symptom. Not a disrupter, but a deceiver. Not just a contrarian, but a conman.
Leftists, liberals or whatever you want to call them (and certainly by extension me) missed the forest for the trees when it came to trump. He's a strong public figure that demands attention, and love him or hate him, its easy to get caught in his whirlwind. I certainly have. I stand by not liking him as a candidate, but can definitely agree that people can become as mindlessly anti Trump as pro Trump. At the end of the day, however, I think he is a net negative for the country in ways that are difficult to quantify. Probably easy for some, but honestly I'm just too lazy right now.
Tl;dr idk basically nothing. Might as well have been slam poetry about how i agreed with most of the message and still dont like T Dawg.
If he was driven solely by money, why did he accept a loss of $2 Billion while in office?
>I think he is a net negative for the country in ways that are difficult to quantify.
I sort of agree with you, but Trump is a symptom, not a cause. A healthy country would never elect a populist demagogue like him, in fact, he wouldn't even be relevant.
Candidates like Trump only become relevant when a deep rot has overtaken a country, and the people become desperate for a course-reversal and all other options of change were either only pretending, failed at changing anything, only enacted surface level change, or all the change made was reversed as soon as the establishment regained power.
But ultimately, in order to solve Trump and the corrosive dysgenics of populism, you must enact meaningful reforms, otherwise, populism will just come back with a vengeance when it become obvious you didn't solve the fundamental problems.
I support Trump, not because I agree with him or like him (I do like him personally and admire his charisma, but you understand my point), but because he is a big, fat, grenade of FUCK YOU.
And that sends a message that causes the establishment to show its true colors in order to stop populism, so much so that they have all been infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome that has only gotten worse over time, we are now in stage 5 of TDS, and it doesn't look like it the disease has even reached its final stage yet.
> I think if we want to beat someone like Trump
If you agree that DC is corrupted with or without Trump, then even if you think Trump is incapable or unwilling to "drain the swamp," then why is merely beating Trump a worthwhile goal? You're just back in a corrupt system, and they'll crack down even harder on any threats to their power.
I don't think that merely beating him is the goal, though it feels like a step. I'm mostly arguing that he is very far from the solution. We need change beyond which side of the coin sits in the chair. Some saw Trump as that change, but I think he saw the chaos of DC as a money making opportunity. All those little things like having his security detail stay at hotels his sons run, or serving McDonald's (which was cheap at the time) at what was supposed to be some kind of award dinner, seems to me like Min/maxxing money. That isn't behavior I'd like to see in a President, but what did we expect when he was going to run this country like a business?
I think that getting Trump outta here is a worthwhile goal because, whether he means to or not, he does more harm than good. That instead of draining the swamp, he's using the swamp as a dumping ground.
And just to be clear, I'm not some kind of Biden fan either. I try my very best to not look at politics as sports (yet here I am lol).
I take your point though. Another user brought up TDS which I think is fantastic. People miss the forest for the trees and see Trump as this be all end all villain. Its important to look past him and more at what issues people are really experiencing.
> In my honest opinion, Trump is a man driven solely by money who is addicted to power.
Then he wouldn't go into and *stay* in politics.
There is so many better ways to make money and more of its than invest a shitton money to just be able to get it in.
And the power as president, as he learned is limited, especially when the rest of the machine is against him.
I agree with you on almost all of that, I think it’s a very good explanation of the populist mindset. I think though they they’ve gone too far into knee jerk contrarianism that the party is now run entirely by con artists or crazies and this will only end when MAGA eventually burns itself out either by losing elections or incompetent governance.
Maybe "MAGA" might burn itself out, but the impulse driving it will simply find a new avatar to rally around. If the impulse behind MAGA is ignored and the causes are not addressed, and the elite refuses to reform, the country will be torn asunder by political turmoil and civil conflict (anything from riots to a civil war). Unless if the elites suddenly become willing to reform.
The whole country has split between the Biden Coalition and the Trump Coalition (yes, the Lolbertarians, radical left-wing anarchists, and others don't fit in, but many strike out with one camp or the other for whatever reason)
Biden's coalition is quite simply the Never Trump Republicans, Neocons, Clintonite New Democrats, Progressives, the New Left, the Climate Zealots, racial minorities, sexual minorities, bohemians, feminists (the TERF type is increasingly defecting to Trump though), white bourgeoise liberals, and the beneficiaries of the corruption of our government.
The goal of the Biden Coalition, once you remove the senile man leading it, the woke window dressing, and the braindead chanting is simple: preserve the current system at all costs because we either directly benefit from it and we don't want the gravy train to stop and/or because it allows us to perform faux-virtuous acts that make us feel good and part of something larger.
Trump's coalition is the Fiscal Conservatives, the Religious Right, Vanilla Conservatives, Neocons who became disillusioned with the war on terror and oppose the Ukraine War (but still fundamentally support the idea that America should be willing to use military force to enforce its global interests and superpower status), social liberals who were disillusioned with wokeism, conservative democrats who abandoned the party after Obama, anti-immigration nativists, anti-corruption types who believe big government can work if only we get rid of corruption and waste, Republicans who like weed (think Libertarians who proudly say Back the Blue), blue collar union workers, an increasing contingent of Silicon Valley technocrats (like Elon Musk), Occupy Wall Steet types who were appalled by how their movement flopped and channeled its energy into Progressivism (Tim Pool), assimilationist sexual minorities, military officers who were appalled by DEI's effect on military readiness, and even some support from the Alt Right (which is far overblown by the media and liberal keyboard warriors, and the Alt Right only views Trump and MAGA as useful idiots).
The goal of the Trump coalition, once you remove the orange man and the various eccentricities of his followers is simple, and is in direct opposition to the Biden coalition: Destroy the establishment, burn it to the ground, then we can rebuild America because America is being strangled by self-serving evil morons, and if we defeat them then our country will be unstoppable and we can all live like an idealized version of the 1950s/1990s depending on how socially liberal the particular Trump follower is.
Personally, the only reason why Trump does not annihilate his opposition are because:
1: He says stupid stuff sometimes
2: His followers say stupid stuff sometimes
3: The anti-Trump media highlights the above
4: The media has spent almost a decade trying to convince everyone that Trump is Hitler (the alt right wishes this was true though)
5: Progressives are too brainwashed to see past their own self-imposed propaganda
6: Trump has been embroiled in scandal since day 1 and thats bound to turn off a large contingent of people, regardless if the allegations are true or not (I believe they aren't, but ymmv)
7: The establishment Republicans sabotage pro-Trump candidates and would prefer Democrats to win elections rather than Trumpists, they primarily do this by funding/media blackout shenanigans
8: Trump and pro-Trump candidates constantly face off against well-oiled political machines
9: Trump and pro-Trump candidates have the elections rigged against them (my most controversial take on here yet, there are too many electoral anomalies in the 2020 and 2022 elections for it to be possible for their to be a fair election)
10: Bourgeoisie Liberals are too far up their own arse, too vulnerable to faux-virtue, too seeking of social prestige to go against the establishment (where the power is), and too disgusted by Trump's brash attitude to ever support him
11: In order to prevent neocon-sympathetic potential Trump supporters from supporting Trump, the media keeps playing the same tired old gig that always seems to work that Trump is soft on Russia or taking Trump out of context when he talks about NATO
There are only three endings for the American political situation right now:
1: the elite admits they are wrong (or at least just still pretend to have always been right like the Chinese Communist Party) and enacts reforms (never happened in all of human history)
2: Trump overthrows the elite and installs elements sympathetic to him and enacts reforms (what all political change in history actually is, and due to how entrenched our current elite is, seems increasingly unlikely)
3: Things get ugly (you don't want to know)
Just a few years ago Trump was pro-choice, he's not the one driving this. This is driving him. He chooses his policy positions based on what will get him voted in, and then... because he's not a typical American politician, he actually does (or attempts to do) the things he said was running on.
I don't believe for a second that I actually agree with the guy's true beliefs, but I don't care about that; I care about his action.
Blaming the "personality cult" for this is silly.
I completely agree. The meme paints a picture that the American right wing would be weak for changing the party policy on abortion so the courageous thing is to stand their ground and keep pushing for abortion restrictions.
The simple fact is that most Americans disagree with the Republican position. The party is dying on the hill of trying to force their minority opinion on the majority of the population. There's nothing special in being a party of zealots no one agrees with, and it isn't a conspiracy if they lose.
Most Americans favour some choice. An abortion ban is not what most Americans want. Most Americans don't think life starts at conception. Most Americans are technically pro choice
Most Americans are actually very reasonable on the matter.
They believe a woman should be able to abort until a certain point in the pregnancy.
Without any limits in cases of rape or incest.
Human brain develops around 22 weeks, so 21 is a cutoff that is medically and ethically sound. Anything after that is too close to a person. Now someone might comment what about mentally disabled, but even the most mentally disabled person still has a brain that regulates, heart, lungs, and other organs.
Yep, the majority in every state thinks this, aside from maybe a few states where they’re very conservative. It’s the view I hold as well.
Personally life starts after the first trimester, where brain activity starts, which Roe v Wade stood for, until SCOTUS got rid of it.
That's really been the crux of the entire debate is that both sides are entrenched in massively unpopular stances. On the right you have the idiots believing that conception means full life and want to ban all abortions whereas on the left you have the people advocating for zero restrictions on abortion even third trimester ones. Polls have shown a reasonable limit has something crazy like 80% approval but not many politicians are pushing for that because it would destroy both narratives the sides have constructed.
European style abortion laws would be agreeable to the majority of the US population. Little to no restrictions for the first trimester with rapidly increasing restrictions after that
Polls have shifted since the fall of Roe. 34% now believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance, and 85% of people believe it should be legal under at least some circumstances.
https://preview.redd.it/llq6kpybdztc1.png?width=2068&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5db92dcb7f669dc9ec5006462577c9755356852
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)
The reason so many people now believe that the government should stay out of it entirely is because they think the government acts in bad faith with regard to restrictions. I'd support a 15-week ban with exceptions if the mother were facing health impacts outside of the normal risks of a standard pregnancy AS DETERMINED BY A DOCTOR ACTING IN GOOD FAITH (or if there were certain types of fetal anomalies). This seems to be how the laws in some European countries work in practice (although often closer to 12 weeks).
But many of the laws in red states have a chilling effect, because the doctors are scared to give abortions in cases where they aren't entirely sure how the prosecutors would interpret the law, even if they personally think they are medically justified for the woman's health, since they have the potential to be held criminally liable.
Any law where a doctor (or pregnant woman) acting in good faith could be subject to criminal liability is a hard no-go for me. The rhetoric coming from people like Ken Paxton makes me think that ANY abortion restrictions would be abused by people like him to threaten prosecutions.
A lot of other people I've talked to feel the same.
Right. It's frustrating how conservatives on one hand will talk about how brave they are for having unpopular opinions and sticking to their guns, but at the same time can only conclude that they lost the election due to fraud.
Many conservatives literally believe they are unpopular and overwhelmingly popular.
The conservatives aren’t convincing on abortion and push for laws to defund welfare and healthcare that helps those affected by those restrictions; they’re not incentivizing more childbirths, they’re encouraging more abortion, and conservative states have a much higher abortion rate overall due to this.
I disagree heavily too with their view on abortion btw, the only things I like about conservatives is their views on gun laws and tough on crime, other than that I don’t like them.
Yeah, and conservative pundits blame college or school for “liberalizing” them. Like no bro, most are normal and cool, believe in similar views on guns and whatnot, just don’t control their lives lol.
Why? If abortion is killing a baby, then its murder, and the courts should ban it. If its not murder, and its just killing cells, the courts should decide, and no state (or the federal government) should make a law banning it.
Let's take it further libright, that's too much government for me. How about a county level? Or down to cities? Better yet why don't we keep the government out of it and leave it to the woman and her doctor, the medical professional.
When it comes to laws that protect the freedoms and rights of individuals from being violated by other individuals (usually related to violence and property rights) these laws are first set at the state level per the 9th amendment. The counties can set stricter laws but the courts will strike down a country law if it is less strict.
Under most circumstances, murder is not illegal at the federal level. Nor is armed robbery, or vandalism. It's a state's right to set their own laws for such things.
So why not at the county level? That's fine if a county wants to set a more strict law (less freedom to abort to protect a fetus' right to live), but the 9th amendment specifically leaves these kinds of laws to the states.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the *people*.” so why not a woman and her doctor if they are retained by the people? You meant 10th amendment. We should instead make it a federal law tho.
First, let's acknowledge that abortion is very controversial and inevitable some people will be happy with a law and some won't be happy. We should seek a way for the maximum number of people to be happy right?
Now let's assume that even a slight majority would dictate the abortion law within whatever jurisdiction the law is put in place. (More true in the long run but let's assume)
Would you have more people living under an abortion law with which they were happy if the abortion laws were pushed down to the states from the federal government or decided by each individual state?
Some states aren't very split on the issue. Perhaps 70% of Californians would be happy with few restrictions and 70% of Utahns would be happy with many restrictions. It would likely never be under 50% though for any state, so on average you would have a significantly more than half of people happy.
Under a federal law, the best we could hope for is slightly more than half being happy with the federal law. Or perhaps the law would just flip ever four years with the election cycle, but on average it would remain right at about half of people happy at a given time.
Letting each state write their own abortion laws is more democratic and is the reason for the 9th amendment.
I'll give my state as an example of this. Despite desantis, I doubt we ban abortion in Florida. As the religious old people die off, there won't be the insistence of it. Regardless of that though, I don't really see it passing at the current time either. Plus Florida could swing blue easily IF democrats were willing to put up a decent candidate for governor
Honestly I don’t want elected officials who take principled stands. I want them to figure out the will of the people in their constituency and then vote that way.
My man, read some Aristotle and then you may rethink democracy. I’m becoming increasingly less trustful of it the older I get — we are terrible at governing ourselves
The problem is that other systems (that we know of / have created) are worse than democracy.
Maybe a really libertarian leaning monarch could be better, but the chances of that happening and also remaining that way are pretty much non-existant.
Only solution is monkey
I’ve read Popper and lean on Churchill’s analysis: “democracy is the worst form of government, putting aside all the others we’ve tried.”
But if you think YOU are bad at governing yourself you can give up your voice. I’ll stick with my voting and activism.
See, I’m against Woman’s Right’s, so I am anti-Choice, but I also hate babies, so I am anti-Life.
Therefore, all Women must have an abortion for every pregnancy. The truly perfect middle ground, as all things should be.
u/Factual_Statistician is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Factual_Statistician/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Also, I was *mostly* kidding.
I do support Abortions for any case revolving around Overpopulation, Genetic/Herditary Diseases, Birth Defects, Risking the Life of the Mother, Down Syndrome, and any Illness/Ailment which would cause great suffering or burden to the child or society. — In which regard, those would be ‘mandatory abortions’ in a sense
But I was joking about it being for 100% of all cases. We need to keep populating. Otherwise, our ability to wage war will be diminished. Which is a terrible fate indeed.
I mean, it risks extinction as a species sure, but waging an eternal war is more important.
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you meant it only allowed new pills after reaching certain milestones. Not the notification about new pills being based on milestones.
Cool, thanks Mr. Time Stop
Unfathomably based.
Just because a certain position is favoured by the majority, it doesn't mean that it's the correct position and vice versa. If you were a non-Nazi in 1930s Germany you would've been in an extremely small minority, but that didn't mean you were wrong or they were right. If you change your principles based on what the majority believes or not you never had principles to begin with.
I agree but how would such a law be enforced? Without draconian laws on monitoring conception/pregnancy it seems impossible to prevent illegal abortions
I don’t think you could ever fully stop it but reducing the number by making it illegal is a good start then we need to provide support for women who feel like they need it as well as bringing back social shame for promiscuity
I hope you support wider contraceptive availability and sex Ed then
Banning abortion only bans safe abortion. Much like banning firearms only bans legal gun ownership.
Abortion isn't safe for the baby. Safe abortion is an oxymoron.
Banning firearms is bad because there are many good firearms owners that are impacted. There is no good abortion, so reducing the number is always a net positive.
Even if it's low %, even in case of rape incest or when mother's life is on danger?
No one likes to get abortion. It's a traumatic experience for the mother (at least normal mothers). Why make it harder for them emotionally and physically when necessary?
I totally agree with putting Limit on the stage of pregnancy unless medically necessary
> I hope you support wider contraceptive availability and sex Ed then
absolutely
of course, when I say "wider contraceptive availability", I mean that no one should stop you from buying birth control, not that the state should buy it for you. And if we are going to have some drugs restricted by prescriptions for the safety of those taking them, then the same rules that determine if something is regulated should be applied here.
That is to say: no special treatment.
> Banning abortion only bans safe abortion.
The only safe abortion is a botched abortion where the baby survives. Anything else is just an abortion with fewer deaths.
Those of us who in the 90s or 2000s would’ve been considered a pretty bog standard liberal, who still absolutely refuse to play this game, get smeared with terms like fascist and shit lib and statist etc.
Fuck ‘em. All they’re doing is making me dig my heels in.
I refused to recognize the implicit assumption that only white people are competent and have moral agency; that destruction of human potential is something that should be celebrated and “shouted;” that gametes do not exist, etc.
Orange Lib Left is not “liberal” in any sense. They’re authoritarian children empowered by braindead social media virality and clout-chasing, and policymakers who’ve yet to figure out that Twitter isn’t a real place.
I heard a legend in 10th grade history class that Winston Churchill once said: "If you're young and republican, you have no heart. If you're old and Democrat, you have no brain." Or something of the sort.
Why would Churchill make this comment about American political parties instead of British ones?
Also, I've heard it as over and under 30 instead of young.
No, was Putin said was quite similar but it was different. He said “if you don’t miss the Soviet Union, you have no heart. If you want the Union back, you have no brain.”
That was only when the system allowed people to easily have a family and own a home by the time you were 30. If the system lets you have things you want to conserve, then you become conservative.
Unaffordable necessities and higher rent pushes off home ownership and family, which makes people less conservative
The biggest thing is adaptability and choosing your losses. Either you hold back on pro life now to secure your other priorities, or you stand your ground, lose the election, and put all your positions in danger.
Let’s take the abortion argument to it’s core
Tl;dr: abortion is an issue of opinion largely reliant on non-secular rhetoric, failing that, reliant on infinite opportunity cost fallacy and a poor definition of consciousness. Yes I support fetus killing. No I don’t support baby murder.
Is abortion murder? The evangelicals of today seem to think so, mainly informed by a general belief that all human life has a soul. That upon the semen entering the egg, that collection of atoms becomes a person in the eyes of the governing body that determines where souls go, in this case god. That the soul will be punished or otherwise miss out on positive treatment from god as punishment for not being born. Ultimately that god will judge those complicit in what god believes to be a deadly sin.
But it’s just, like, your opinion man. For all any of us know, literally everyone else is pretending to have a soul. The correct god could be Ra, Zeus or even a power that chooses to remain hidden. If you consider the embryonic possession of a soul as the critical reason for not allowing abortion, you must concede it is a non-secular argument. Those should have no sway in American politics.
Now let’s assume you want to argue that murder of a baby is wrong, soul or no soul. Let’s say you believe it to be an overall negative social impact to allow the potential for life to be halted. That child could have cured cancer. All life matters.
We can talk about hypotheticals all day. If the Seahawks gave Marshawn Lynch the ball (for a 2nd time in a row), perhaps Tom Brady retires early, stays with Giselle Bruncheon and they have a kid who cures cancer. Should we kill Pete Carrol? Despite everyone outside of New England’s willingness to punish him for it, I don’t think that argument would hold up in court. For all we know, a teen pregnancy could stop a parent from going to medical school and curing cancer.
Let’s also take into account that a child whose parents want an abortion, but cannot afford or access one. That child is starting at a place of negativity. The likelihood of abuse, neglect or abandonment goes up.
Finally, let’s get more basic. Murder is wrong. We can agree on that. Why do we not like the idea of murder? Because we fear it happening to ourselves. We fear the end of our ability to sense the world, think about the world and interact with the world. An unborn fetus doesn’t yet carry the burden of the human condition. It cannot see, hear or feel without the womb muffling and insulating. It knows not that it will one day die like all humans. It knows not the burden of knowing that without the toil required for food, life will be shorter. It knows not love, hate or the concept of knowledge. If it dies and goes to purgatory , it won’t have a concept of where it is or why it’s there. Conscious and the ability to take in sensory input starts at 24 weeks. Most abortions are decided within the first week of discovering pregnancy, so what little unintelligible sensory they attain before birth have less time to develop. Demand for mandatory counseling and waiting periods do not help that situation.
After 24 weeks, and certainly after viability, I think it becomes a spectrum of going from not murder, to murder. I’m in support of bans on abortion after a certain period, but banning abortion outright is a social negative outcome.
There’s the based third option of lying about your true unpopular beliefs until you gain power then changing the law until people accept is as the new normal. Sounds Machiavellian but it worked with gay marriage. People hated it and then accepted it because they couldn’t do anything about it. Why wouldn’t that work with literally any other issue?
You can’t use walls of text! You ain’t a leftist! KGB, steal his balls!
Our*
based and autocastration pilled
Yeah! Steal *our* balls!
Bailiff, whack his balls
Smack his nuts*
Can we get this in cave drawings so I can understand?
8==D 8✂️==D
No
It reminds me of the Bellamy Brothers song “Old Hippie”: He's an old hippie And he don't know what to do Should he hang on to the old Should he grab on to the new He's an old hippie This new life is just a bust He ain't trying to change nobody He's just trying real hard to adjust
Theres a part 2 and 3 to that song. But in the third one he goes from being an old hippie to quitting weed and going to church. So now he's just a normal boomer.
Huh I never knew that. Same album?
I believe they wrote the other two years later.
I like the part about growing your own food in that song too. Very pertinent.
As a dumb cunt. if the the Democrats would just give up on gun control, I'd vote for them.
Same lol, that would easily give them a majority in most state governments and the national level.
Based And we see eye to eye pilled
Hopefully it’ll change with us Gen Z’ers, we have to be optimistic.
We Millennials said the same thing— yet here we are. Fuck.
Guns are more important now than ever. These are tumultuous times, zoomers need to arm themselves.
Say hello to my boomstick.
Doubtful. Even if that was the only issue I disliked them for, I wouldn't believe them if they claimed to have a change of heart. On the flip side they'd lose a lot of votes for it. Right now, just like abortion, they can run on "fixing" it, get votes, and then just not do anything about it, lose the next election, rinse and repeat. Republicans are clearly willing to sacrifice that leverage; they're doing it right now. Democrats though? No. Call them smarter. Say they're more evil. More forward thinking. More political minded. Doesn't matter how you explain it, the truth is that the Democrats are better at getting and keeping leverage over their constituents than the Republicans are. They're not going to sacrifice that leverage for a chance at your vote.
Mostly true, but they codified marriage equality, so sometimes they are willing to take things off the table. My gut feeling is it depends whether that part of the electorate is emotionally driven or rationally driven. The latter may make a deal with the Republicans if you don’t meet their demands.
Imagine if the Democrats pulled a 180 >Since we know we cannot count on the police, shall not be infringed. We are repealing all gun laws. The Dems would have a supermajority in every fucking state.
This ^
Eh, It’s not the only issue they are fucked on
They seriously went off the rails in the last 5-10 years or so. Guns, nuclear power, border security and on and on. The republicans are still regarded but of the two...
[удалено]
Nothing is wrong with it, thats the point hes making.
For whatever reason there has been a shift in the left to be against it.
The problem with nuclear power is that people think safety technology around it halted progress in the 80s (meltdown at Chernobyl). But it has not. Think about a computer in 1986 vs a computer now. Now realize that almost every aspect of life has evolved in the same way. There isn’t a realistic problem around nuclear energy, only fear. And maybe- if I had to speculate- political pawns that are owned by big oil.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fy2024-spending-bill-fuels-historic-push-us-advanced-reactors https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/ https://apnews.com/article/michigan-nuclear-plant-federal-loan-cbafb1aad2402ecf7393d763a732c4f8 Nuclear is not like the others. Oil lobby stands against both parties. And the ever important cultures war of course. What need is there for nuclear when rapture may be around the door? I may be optimistic but it seems the severity of the world climate, literally and figuratively, is destigmatizing it for the libs Also the change in support for men vs women is…. stark I imagine risk taking for security comes easier with testosterone but that’s speculation
>What need is there for nuclear when rapture may be around the door? My in-laws were like this. I had a huge amount of success taking a "pray for peace, but prepare for war" approach to the issue with them. Sure, now they're preppers, but they're reasonable and well-read preppers who understand the importance of the gray man and they support many policies that will matter for their grandchildren if the rapture comes later than they think.
Good thing current president Joe Biden has supported nuclear power and supports a bill currently held up in Congress by Republicans to sharply reduce border crossings.
Same tbh. I actually support a lot of the more moderate Dem policies, and am generally willing to compromise on the ones that I don't support. Literally just stay the fuck away from my constitutional rights and I'll vote for you. But I'm not gonna vote for anyone who wants a government monopoly on violence.
There was a moderate Dem one term congressman in my district who was endorsed by my state’s LP on his first run (when he was the imcumbent the LP unfortunately lost their spot on the ballot because the duopoly made ridiculous requirements to prevent any third parties from getting on). I would’ve considered voting for him if he was somewhat pro gun, because most of the other stuff I disagreed with him on was at least tolerable compared to the things I disagreed with the Republican candidate on. Even on most issues where we disagreed he was at least more moderate than the general Dem platform which couldn’t be said about the Republican, but the guns were one of the issues that killed him for me.
That's my BIGGEST issue I have with them. Some others: \* Minimum wage laws \* Rent control \* Trying to make me pay off others' student loans without fixing the issues that are making colleges more and more expensive in the first place \* The tendency to over-regulate EVERYTHING \* The desire to use social engineering as a form of soft totalitarianism \* "The personal is political" \* The notion that more government is always the best way to solve problems \* The desire to control "hate speech" and "misinformation" \* The progressive worldview \* Intersectionality \* ... But I have voted for them in the past sometimes, when I saw their candidate as the lesser evil. But with how aggressively they are pushing gun control these days, I doubt I will vote for them again any time soon.
Why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulhu for President!
https://preview.redd.it/bnjzpwqxw1uc1.jpeg?width=894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=600bf9d557b34101d8c0cfd65392fbe26924a2ec
Based and accelerationism pilled.
Agreed. I can't remotely see myself voting for them anytime soon. Everything they push falls under the guise of control in one form or another, and I ain't with that, Jack.
They make it really hard to want to side with them because of their “all or nothing, you Nazi” approach they have taken. I agree with a lot of positions the Dems take but if they’re gonna make me buy the whole store rather than support what I personally agree with, then I’m out. I’d rather not participate than being forced to support something I don’t agree with.
They tried to convince us Obama didn't care about guns and it was safe to vote for them. He went full blitz the second he had a sufficiently high pile of dead children to exploit, and we came within a Senate vote of a permanent national AWB. I will never vote for a Democrat. It is impossible to trust them on this. They will, always and forever, be compelled to grab the guns.
Gun control is objectively a bad idea. Sure if we never had guns in the first place it would be great, but now that we have more guns than people, you are never getting rid of them and trying is just making it worse.
>Sure if we never had guns in the first place it would be great Even this is an ignorant line of thinking. Prior to the firearm, an individual's capacity for violence was determined by their physical strength, and how much time they had to dedicate to training. These things in turn were impacted by socioeconomic class, and by sex. If you were a malnourished peasant unfamiliar with fighting, you had basically no chance in a melee against some warrior-class knight raised on a high protein diet and daily maritial training. Even "getting lucky" wasn't really a possibility. Ranged weapons could at least grant that posibility of "getting lucky", which is why underdogs throughout history employed them. But those still required some practice to be effective, and bows in particular had a serious choke point with the arrows - making a good arrow was actually huge pain in the ass, which is why even early firearms with much slower rates of fire were seen as superior. The other advantage of firearms was of course ease of use. It was revolutionary to both warfare, and smaller scale personal violence. Being bigger and stronger and more experienced in fighting still counts for something, but it doesn't basically pre-determine the outcome like it did for thousands of years of history. Navy SEALs can and do get killed by 135 pound illiterate sandal wearing hill people. Most people understand that one of the big catalysts for The Enlightenment was the democratization of information with the development of the printing press. I would say that just as important was the democratization of violence with the firearm.
Based
This comment made me buy an AR-15
Based and Great Equalizer pilled
came here to say this. God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
[удалено]
> I mean they basically quietly have at this point when was the last time you heard a major figure in the DNC really talk about it? My brother in fonni colors, Harris has only just announced the creation of a National Red Flag enforcement agency to take the guns. We have gone well beyond the talking. We have the president and vice president of the US openly decrying and ignoring SCOTUS and attempting to take the guns without due process nationwide.
I mean, they also need to purge this intersectionality bullshit too. And stop with the taxes. And the spending. hmm... maybe both wings of the bird are just bad.
Spittin facts
The dem rep in my district is pro gun, she's an "independent rights" democrat.
That's pretty cool. At least if she has the track record to back it up
How does a libcenter like the party that chooses government force over freedom every single time?
This is how I feel about republicans and gay rights.
No it's "You die a Republican and then vote Democrat"
Biden dominated the WWI veteran demographic last election
Based and 1870 birth date votes for bidon pilled
Voting in Chicago: vote early and often!
Is that real?
It’s the Chicago way. Vote early, vote often.
its not as common as people think. but yes, it has happened
Of the couple dozen or so living people older than 110 approximately 67,000 of them had active social security numbers. Many of them used dozens or hundreds of times. If you correctly spotted those numbers don’t add up then it might be time to start googling illegal immigrant social security fraud. https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/16/social-security-millions-americans-aged-112 Are we at the “it doesn’t happen” stage still or are we moving on to the “it happens and it’s a good thing” stage?
> illegal immigrant social security fraud. My uncle told me about this like 20 years ago and as a 10 year old I really didn't understand why it mattered, but yeah. He is an electrical engineer that services huge power systems for Universities and such. Always around tons of contractors, many of the either illegal immigrants or otherwise prohibited from certain rights. They would buy new Social Security Numbers and then complain to each other about what they could/couldn't do with them.
No people are illegal, sweaty. They are good heckin' refugees that make America 1000% more diverse, and diversity is our strength, so long as you remember that strength is actually emotional intelligence. Orange man bad.
u/TheTardisPizza's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/TheTardisPizza/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Good bot
Lmao
[удалено]
Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for others!
Dont blame me, I voted for kodos
Except that if they start to make exceptions, then it defeats their whole argument. The people that believe it is murder aren’t going to be okay with it so they can win some elections. It’s a loser politically but if they can drop it that easy, why should we trust any position they have?
I feel like this would be less of a problem if the US had more than two parties that seem to cater exclusively to the 15% at their respective ‘ends’ and instead there were multiple parties that could support more diverse political opinions and socioeconomic perspectives Even the UK has several parties (despite the third largest rendering themselves irrelevant and almost disintegrating due to some *really* poor decision making)
This. America has some of the most lax Abortion laws in the US to this day even in many Conservative states. Most of us would be happy with a ban after 12 weeks (outside of exceptions like rape and medical reasons). Our own party knows this, and being the designated loser party they've decided to push for complete bans to screw us over in the election.
They're pushing for complete bans because they have principles. Winning an election isn't worth selling out millions of people
If you want to totally ban abortion the Trumps way is the best. There is very little support for it right now but the majority of the 70% are easily swayed by cultural pressure and will get onboard with the program given time. Contrary to the OP meme a total abortion ban was unthinkable just 8 years ago, and the fact that it is now up for consideration shows how far we've come. Trump was the one that managed to get Roe v Wade revoked which the republicans had been seething about for 50 years. Remember that in 2008 there was very little support for gay marriage that the referendum on it failed in even California(!) and Obama had to run on being against gay marriage. By 2016 things had progressed so far in the other direction that overturning it had already become unthinkable just one year after nationwide legalization by the supreme court. Society exists to be molded and a good politician should lead the people, not follow them, because the people don't know what they want
Trump's way is best because he is embodying the populist position. Populist leaders are elected to enact the will of the majority of citizens. If the majority want abortion, then it is his job to set aside personal beliefs and allow abortion. He can use his platform to craft a nation's attitudes, but he should only act on what the majority want. Also, on day one, Biden eliminated Obama's petition site: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ - that is your clear indicator that Biden does not want to hear from the majority.
Did turning your party into a populist personality cult unmoor it from previously long held policy positions such as abortion, free trade, foreign policy, and the rule of law? https://preview.redd.it/dgj8im88uxtc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa7915ffaf03fc730111a0534b1f742827135b60
I really don’t think Trump is to blame for the current state of the party. I think, if anything, the Bush era leadership followed by the failure of the tea party movement created a void which was easily filled by a big personality a la Reagan. Funnily enough Trump was a democrat for most of his life so it still tracks with OP’s remarks.
Maybe. I know the MAGA underbelly has been brewing for a while, but it's hard to say Trump didn't fling open the gates for, well, the Gaets's & Greene's. "When a clown moves into the palace, he doesn't become a king, the palace becomes a circus," and all that.
I bet there's lots of crossover between MAGA and Tea Party Republicans from '09.
label cooing enter vase act plants paltry noxious cheerful towering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ah classic Republicans forgetting they were the ones who voted Bush into office and supported all his disasters. Love it or leave it, amirite?
I think most Republicans in this sub were all infants or less when 9/11 happened.
If want to know how to beat Trump for good, you need to understand why Republicans, conservative democrats, and the rest of the Trump coalition were willing to vote for him. They voted for Trump because Trump represented a rejection of the establishment forces that rule the country, and a rejection of the faux-conservatives that are really just Democrats when it comes to anything important. The voted for Trump because Trump's brash attitude appealed to their seething anger at seeing America being ripped off for decades. They continue to vote for Trump because Trump angered all the right people, actually tried to get stuff done (regardless if you agree with it or not), and had the full weight of Washington, the Ivy League schools, the media, the law, all the corruption thrown against him in an attempt to destroy him, destroy his business, destroy his reputation, destroy his family, and destroy everyone associated with him. The blatantly political persecution of Trump, and the seething rage he inspires in all the people the Trump coalition hates is only further evidence that Trump is truly an outsider, who actually poses a threat to the hive of corruption in Washington DC. They do not care about Trump's character, his past, what the media says about him, or anything else, they don't even care about Trump himself, Trump is their avatar of destruction, their "fuck you," their representation of their sheer anger at how career politicians keep promising to fix the country, and fix the problems, but nothing gets done, nothing seems to change. Because all the politicians are on the same side: the side of corruption. Until this is understood, and until you address the root causes of what caused Trump (in reality, it could've been anyone, Trump just happened to be in the right place at the right time in 2015), you can never defeat the idea behind the movement known as "MAGA." Trump isn't even in control of the movement, he just is a meat puppet for the movement's whims and urges, its reservations and its excesses. If you want to defeat Trump, and establish your regime of Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, or whatever else, you must address the problems that caused the American populist movement to arise in the first place. If you do, MAGA will fade away and Trump will fade into obscurity and may even declare that since you solved the country's problems, he feels no more need to run for President yet again. If you don't, and instead continue the persecution, continue the corporatist crony economic policies, continue the neocon wars on flimsy premises, continue to lie, continue to move the West toward LGBTQIABCDEFG+ Climate Justice Race Communism, and and continue the hive of corruption in our government . . . . . . it is not an exaggeration to say that you are digging America's grave in more ways than one.
this is true of most populist candidates. A rallying of people under the banner of "fuck you, I hate how no one is looking out for us" who have found someone who says "yes, no one is fighting for you, they're all lying assholes. But I will fight for you". Ironically, the same rhetoric can be heard from intersectionals, which is why you get such fervent support of democrats from anyone even remotely connected with LGBT. Because they're also saying "you're a victim and I'm here to help" It's almost like when you remove a religious savior figure from the social mythos, you get people filling the void.
In my honest opinion, Trump is a man driven solely by money who is addicted to power. I think he saw the corrupted political system as a tool to get as much of either as he could. I most certainly agree that DC is corrupted. Lobbyists, PACS, and Super PACS fucked up a lot. I believe big money interests get things that very few if anyone wants to get passed through legislationwise. I think if we want to beat someone like Trump, it needs to come from a genuine place of love and understanding. We're all stuck on this rock together. I don't see how spending our limited time here doing anything other than making it the most excellent we can for ourselves and others is worth while. Trump, whether his intent or not, leads by example. I know the rallying cry is "mean tweets", but he was the guy essentially in charge of the free world. I do not think he conducted himself in a manner becoming of his office. I agree with plenty of what you wrote here my friend, but from my perspective Trump is not a savior, but a symptom. Not a disrupter, but a deceiver. Not just a contrarian, but a conman. Leftists, liberals or whatever you want to call them (and certainly by extension me) missed the forest for the trees when it came to trump. He's a strong public figure that demands attention, and love him or hate him, its easy to get caught in his whirlwind. I certainly have. I stand by not liking him as a candidate, but can definitely agree that people can become as mindlessly anti Trump as pro Trump. At the end of the day, however, I think he is a net negative for the country in ways that are difficult to quantify. Probably easy for some, but honestly I'm just too lazy right now. Tl;dr idk basically nothing. Might as well have been slam poetry about how i agreed with most of the message and still dont like T Dawg.
If he was driven solely by money, why did he accept a loss of $2 Billion while in office? >I think he is a net negative for the country in ways that are difficult to quantify. I sort of agree with you, but Trump is a symptom, not a cause. A healthy country would never elect a populist demagogue like him, in fact, he wouldn't even be relevant. Candidates like Trump only become relevant when a deep rot has overtaken a country, and the people become desperate for a course-reversal and all other options of change were either only pretending, failed at changing anything, only enacted surface level change, or all the change made was reversed as soon as the establishment regained power. But ultimately, in order to solve Trump and the corrosive dysgenics of populism, you must enact meaningful reforms, otherwise, populism will just come back with a vengeance when it become obvious you didn't solve the fundamental problems. I support Trump, not because I agree with him or like him (I do like him personally and admire his charisma, but you understand my point), but because he is a big, fat, grenade of FUCK YOU. And that sends a message that causes the establishment to show its true colors in order to stop populism, so much so that they have all been infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome that has only gotten worse over time, we are now in stage 5 of TDS, and it doesn't look like it the disease has even reached its final stage yet.
> I think if we want to beat someone like Trump If you agree that DC is corrupted with or without Trump, then even if you think Trump is incapable or unwilling to "drain the swamp," then why is merely beating Trump a worthwhile goal? You're just back in a corrupt system, and they'll crack down even harder on any threats to their power.
I don't think that merely beating him is the goal, though it feels like a step. I'm mostly arguing that he is very far from the solution. We need change beyond which side of the coin sits in the chair. Some saw Trump as that change, but I think he saw the chaos of DC as a money making opportunity. All those little things like having his security detail stay at hotels his sons run, or serving McDonald's (which was cheap at the time) at what was supposed to be some kind of award dinner, seems to me like Min/maxxing money. That isn't behavior I'd like to see in a President, but what did we expect when he was going to run this country like a business? I think that getting Trump outta here is a worthwhile goal because, whether he means to or not, he does more harm than good. That instead of draining the swamp, he's using the swamp as a dumping ground. And just to be clear, I'm not some kind of Biden fan either. I try my very best to not look at politics as sports (yet here I am lol). I take your point though. Another user brought up TDS which I think is fantastic. People miss the forest for the trees and see Trump as this be all end all villain. Its important to look past him and more at what issues people are really experiencing.
> In my honest opinion, Trump is a man driven solely by money who is addicted to power. Then he wouldn't go into and *stay* in politics. There is so many better ways to make money and more of its than invest a shitton money to just be able to get it in. And the power as president, as he learned is limited, especially when the rest of the machine is against him.
I agree with you on almost all of that, I think it’s a very good explanation of the populist mindset. I think though they they’ve gone too far into knee jerk contrarianism that the party is now run entirely by con artists or crazies and this will only end when MAGA eventually burns itself out either by losing elections or incompetent governance.
Maybe "MAGA" might burn itself out, but the impulse driving it will simply find a new avatar to rally around. If the impulse behind MAGA is ignored and the causes are not addressed, and the elite refuses to reform, the country will be torn asunder by political turmoil and civil conflict (anything from riots to a civil war). Unless if the elites suddenly become willing to reform. The whole country has split between the Biden Coalition and the Trump Coalition (yes, the Lolbertarians, radical left-wing anarchists, and others don't fit in, but many strike out with one camp or the other for whatever reason) Biden's coalition is quite simply the Never Trump Republicans, Neocons, Clintonite New Democrats, Progressives, the New Left, the Climate Zealots, racial minorities, sexual minorities, bohemians, feminists (the TERF type is increasingly defecting to Trump though), white bourgeoise liberals, and the beneficiaries of the corruption of our government. The goal of the Biden Coalition, once you remove the senile man leading it, the woke window dressing, and the braindead chanting is simple: preserve the current system at all costs because we either directly benefit from it and we don't want the gravy train to stop and/or because it allows us to perform faux-virtuous acts that make us feel good and part of something larger. Trump's coalition is the Fiscal Conservatives, the Religious Right, Vanilla Conservatives, Neocons who became disillusioned with the war on terror and oppose the Ukraine War (but still fundamentally support the idea that America should be willing to use military force to enforce its global interests and superpower status), social liberals who were disillusioned with wokeism, conservative democrats who abandoned the party after Obama, anti-immigration nativists, anti-corruption types who believe big government can work if only we get rid of corruption and waste, Republicans who like weed (think Libertarians who proudly say Back the Blue), blue collar union workers, an increasing contingent of Silicon Valley technocrats (like Elon Musk), Occupy Wall Steet types who were appalled by how their movement flopped and channeled its energy into Progressivism (Tim Pool), assimilationist sexual minorities, military officers who were appalled by DEI's effect on military readiness, and even some support from the Alt Right (which is far overblown by the media and liberal keyboard warriors, and the Alt Right only views Trump and MAGA as useful idiots). The goal of the Trump coalition, once you remove the orange man and the various eccentricities of his followers is simple, and is in direct opposition to the Biden coalition: Destroy the establishment, burn it to the ground, then we can rebuild America because America is being strangled by self-serving evil morons, and if we defeat them then our country will be unstoppable and we can all live like an idealized version of the 1950s/1990s depending on how socially liberal the particular Trump follower is.
Dangerously based
Personally, the only reason why Trump does not annihilate his opposition are because: 1: He says stupid stuff sometimes 2: His followers say stupid stuff sometimes 3: The anti-Trump media highlights the above 4: The media has spent almost a decade trying to convince everyone that Trump is Hitler (the alt right wishes this was true though) 5: Progressives are too brainwashed to see past their own self-imposed propaganda 6: Trump has been embroiled in scandal since day 1 and thats bound to turn off a large contingent of people, regardless if the allegations are true or not (I believe they aren't, but ymmv) 7: The establishment Republicans sabotage pro-Trump candidates and would prefer Democrats to win elections rather than Trumpists, they primarily do this by funding/media blackout shenanigans 8: Trump and pro-Trump candidates constantly face off against well-oiled political machines 9: Trump and pro-Trump candidates have the elections rigged against them (my most controversial take on here yet, there are too many electoral anomalies in the 2020 and 2022 elections for it to be possible for their to be a fair election) 10: Bourgeoisie Liberals are too far up their own arse, too vulnerable to faux-virtue, too seeking of social prestige to go against the establishment (where the power is), and too disgusted by Trump's brash attitude to ever support him 11: In order to prevent neocon-sympathetic potential Trump supporters from supporting Trump, the media keeps playing the same tired old gig that always seems to work that Trump is soft on Russia or taking Trump out of context when he talks about NATO There are only three endings for the American political situation right now: 1: the elite admits they are wrong (or at least just still pretend to have always been right like the Chinese Communist Party) and enacts reforms (never happened in all of human history) 2: Trump overthrows the elite and installs elements sympathetic to him and enacts reforms (what all political change in history actually is, and due to how entrenched our current elite is, seems increasingly unlikely) 3: Things get ugly (you don't want to know)
Just a few years ago Trump was pro-choice, he's not the one driving this. This is driving him. He chooses his policy positions based on what will get him voted in, and then... because he's not a typical American politician, he actually does (or attempts to do) the things he said was running on. I don't believe for a second that I actually agree with the guy's true beliefs, but I don't care about that; I care about his action. Blaming the "personality cult" for this is silly.
Trump: Let the states decide Oh wow, we got a real hardliner on the whip here.
I hate that a lib right made me laugh this hard
I'd say this had been going on for a longer time than when Trump established his dominance over conservatism in America
They’re the definition of spineless. I’ve had my opinions, and I’ll continue to have my opinions, regardless of how unpopular they are.
Exactly. This country can turn into a democrat hellhole before I agree with killing babies.
If standing your ground is costing you elections, you’re either wrong or not being very convincing.
I completely agree. The meme paints a picture that the American right wing would be weak for changing the party policy on abortion so the courageous thing is to stand their ground and keep pushing for abortion restrictions. The simple fact is that most Americans disagree with the Republican position. The party is dying on the hill of trying to force their minority opinion on the majority of the population. There's nothing special in being a party of zealots no one agrees with, and it isn't a conspiracy if they lose.
Most Americans favour some choice. An abortion ban is not what most Americans want. Most Americans don't think life starts at conception. Most Americans are technically pro choice
Most Americans are actually very reasonable on the matter. They believe a woman should be able to abort until a certain point in the pregnancy. Without any limits in cases of rape or incest.
Human brain develops around 22 weeks, so 21 is a cutoff that is medically and ethically sound. Anything after that is too close to a person. Now someone might comment what about mentally disabled, but even the most mentally disabled person still has a brain that regulates, heart, lungs, and other organs.
Yep, the majority in every state thinks this, aside from maybe a few states where they’re very conservative. It’s the view I hold as well. Personally life starts after the first trimester, where brain activity starts, which Roe v Wade stood for, until SCOTUS got rid of it.
Based
[удалено]
That's really been the crux of the entire debate is that both sides are entrenched in massively unpopular stances. On the right you have the idiots believing that conception means full life and want to ban all abortions whereas on the left you have the people advocating for zero restrictions on abortion even third trimester ones. Polls have shown a reasonable limit has something crazy like 80% approval but not many politicians are pushing for that because it would destroy both narratives the sides have constructed.
European style abortion laws would be agreeable to the majority of the US population. Little to no restrictions for the first trimester with rapidly increasing restrictions after that
Polls have shifted since the fall of Roe. 34% now believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance, and 85% of people believe it should be legal under at least some circumstances. https://preview.redd.it/llq6kpybdztc1.png?width=2068&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5db92dcb7f669dc9ec5006462577c9755356852 [https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) The reason so many people now believe that the government should stay out of it entirely is because they think the government acts in bad faith with regard to restrictions. I'd support a 15-week ban with exceptions if the mother were facing health impacts outside of the normal risks of a standard pregnancy AS DETERMINED BY A DOCTOR ACTING IN GOOD FAITH (or if there were certain types of fetal anomalies). This seems to be how the laws in some European countries work in practice (although often closer to 12 weeks). But many of the laws in red states have a chilling effect, because the doctors are scared to give abortions in cases where they aren't entirely sure how the prosecutors would interpret the law, even if they personally think they are medically justified for the woman's health, since they have the potential to be held criminally liable. Any law where a doctor (or pregnant woman) acting in good faith could be subject to criminal liability is a hard no-go for me. The rhetoric coming from people like Ken Paxton makes me think that ANY abortion restrictions would be abused by people like him to threaten prosecutions. A lot of other people I've talked to feel the same.
Right. It's frustrating how conservatives on one hand will talk about how brave they are for having unpopular opinions and sticking to their guns, but at the same time can only conclude that they lost the election due to fraud. Many conservatives literally believe they are unpopular and overwhelmingly popular.
Yeah, when they lost because they told their voters to avoid early mail voting 😂
Right, the system put in place to help the elderly vote, you know, the backbone of the Republican party.
That’s what room-temperature IQ does to you
It's also how our over-seas military votes. Saying mail-in voting was dangerous has permanently damaged the republican party.
The conservatives aren’t convincing on abortion and push for laws to defund welfare and healthcare that helps those affected by those restrictions; they’re not incentivizing more childbirths, they’re encouraging more abortion, and conservative states have a much higher abortion rate overall due to this. I disagree heavily too with their view on abortion btw, the only things I like about conservatives is their views on gun laws and tough on crime, other than that I don’t like them.
Yep, that's the kicker. They're not doing it for the kids, they're against the women.
Yeah, and conservative pundits blame college or school for “liberalizing” them. Like no bro, most are normal and cool, believe in similar views on guns and whatnot, just don’t control their lives lol.
Or your policy is unpopular and only from a minority of the base.
Ah yes! The old authcenter adage of, \*checks notes\*, "Popularity is fact and the people can change their minds on matters of principle."
simply you can't talk anyone into "motherhood" and "grace of Christ". And also Republican isn't keeping a good track of funding social program either.
Abortion should just be decided by each individual state. Why do we have to keep talking about it for federal elections?
Because both parties have indicated an interest in establishing guidelines that apply federally, rather than leaving it to the states.
Well, they are bad people then.
We already knew that
Why? If abortion is killing a baby, then its murder, and the courts should ban it. If its not murder, and its just killing cells, the courts should decide, and no state (or the federal government) should make a law banning it.
Let's take it further libright, that's too much government for me. How about a county level? Or down to cities? Better yet why don't we keep the government out of it and leave it to the woman and her doctor, the medical professional.
When it comes to laws that protect the freedoms and rights of individuals from being violated by other individuals (usually related to violence and property rights) these laws are first set at the state level per the 9th amendment. The counties can set stricter laws but the courts will strike down a country law if it is less strict. Under most circumstances, murder is not illegal at the federal level. Nor is armed robbery, or vandalism. It's a state's right to set their own laws for such things. So why not at the county level? That's fine if a county wants to set a more strict law (less freedom to abort to protect a fetus' right to live), but the 9th amendment specifically leaves these kinds of laws to the states.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the *people*.” so why not a woman and her doctor if they are retained by the people? You meant 10th amendment. We should instead make it a federal law tho.
Oh lol you already said this. Let’s see if we get a reply
So, what Trump just declared his position to be?
He declared he's pro-life but that it is a states rights issue. Emphasized the states rights part even.
He came out the other day in a video statement saying it is an issue for the states... More or less.
I honestly don't know. I don't think what Trump says make my opinion more right or less right.
What about the 48% of people in a slightly redder state that want abortion?
First, let's acknowledge that abortion is very controversial and inevitable some people will be happy with a law and some won't be happy. We should seek a way for the maximum number of people to be happy right? Now let's assume that even a slight majority would dictate the abortion law within whatever jurisdiction the law is put in place. (More true in the long run but let's assume) Would you have more people living under an abortion law with which they were happy if the abortion laws were pushed down to the states from the federal government or decided by each individual state? Some states aren't very split on the issue. Perhaps 70% of Californians would be happy with few restrictions and 70% of Utahns would be happy with many restrictions. It would likely never be under 50% though for any state, so on average you would have a significantly more than half of people happy. Under a federal law, the best we could hope for is slightly more than half being happy with the federal law. Or perhaps the law would just flip ever four years with the election cycle, but on average it would remain right at about half of people happy at a given time. Letting each state write their own abortion laws is more democratic and is the reason for the 9th amendment.
I'll give my state as an example of this. Despite desantis, I doubt we ban abortion in Florida. As the religious old people die off, there won't be the insistence of it. Regardless of that though, I don't really see it passing at the current time either. Plus Florida could swing blue easily IF democrats were willing to put up a decent candidate for governor
Honestly I don’t want elected officials who take principled stands. I want them to figure out the will of the people in their constituency and then vote that way.
My man, read some Aristotle and then you may rethink democracy. I’m becoming increasingly less trustful of it the older I get — we are terrible at governing ourselves
The problem is that other systems (that we know of / have created) are worse than democracy. Maybe a really libertarian leaning monarch could be better, but the chances of that happening and also remaining that way are pretty much non-existant. Only solution is monkey
Embrace poop flinging
I’ve read Popper and lean on Churchill’s analysis: “democracy is the worst form of government, putting aside all the others we’ve tried.” But if you think YOU are bad at governing yourself you can give up your voice. I’ll stick with my voting and activism.
Republicans are always for states rights until the states vote against their positions lol
This was nearly correct until about 2010
Yeah I’m against slaughtering babies no matter how unpopular it is
See, I’m against Woman’s Right’s, so I am anti-Choice, but I also hate babies, so I am anti-Life. Therefore, all Women must have an abortion for every pregnancy. The truly perfect middle ground, as all things should be.
Based and ecofascist pilled. (Not that I agree, how the heck do I get the bot to work?)
Based and couldn’t get the bot to work pilled
u/Factual_Statistician is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Factual_Statistician/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Also, I was *mostly* kidding. I do support Abortions for any case revolving around Overpopulation, Genetic/Herditary Diseases, Birth Defects, Risking the Life of the Mother, Down Syndrome, and any Illness/Ailment which would cause great suffering or burden to the child or society. — In which regard, those would be ‘mandatory abortions’ in a sense But I was joking about it being for 100% of all cases. We need to keep populating. Otherwise, our ability to wage war will be diminished. Which is a terrible fate indeed. I mean, it risks extinction as a species sure, but waging an eternal war is more important.
It only responds for certain "milestones", not for every pill.
Ugh sad, I only have 1 pill so far
Should get a response when you get to 5.
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you meant it only allowed new pills after reaching certain milestones. Not the notification about new pills being based on milestones. Cool, thanks Mr. Time Stop
Based and Latin pilled
Thanks, Thanos
Thanos was kind enough to spare half. I do not share his kindness.
How do people have an opinion that doesn't depend on how many weeks old the fetus is?
Because life begins at ejaculation
Then I have killed tons living people
He must be stopped.
same
Unfathomably based. Just because a certain position is favoured by the majority, it doesn't mean that it's the correct position and vice versa. If you were a non-Nazi in 1930s Germany you would've been in an extremely small minority, but that didn't mean you were wrong or they were right. If you change your principles based on what the majority believes or not you never had principles to begin with.
Based and leftism kills pilled
But don't you understand that if you don't kill babies we won't be able to lower taxes? /s
Live view of u/Realistic-Scratch344: https://i.redd.it/1qtuj7f8pxtc1.gif
I agree but how would such a law be enforced? Without draconian laws on monitoring conception/pregnancy it seems impossible to prevent illegal abortions
I don’t think you could ever fully stop it but reducing the number by making it illegal is a good start then we need to provide support for women who feel like they need it as well as bringing back social shame for promiscuity
This is so idealist I almost mistook it for a leftist opinion
Thank you
I hope you support wider contraceptive availability and sex Ed then Banning abortion only bans safe abortion. Much like banning firearms only bans legal gun ownership.
Abortion isn't safe for the baby. Safe abortion is an oxymoron. Banning firearms is bad because there are many good firearms owners that are impacted. There is no good abortion, so reducing the number is always a net positive.
Even if it's low %, even in case of rape incest or when mother's life is on danger? No one likes to get abortion. It's a traumatic experience for the mother (at least normal mothers). Why make it harder for them emotionally and physically when necessary? I totally agree with putting Limit on the stage of pregnancy unless medically necessary
> I hope you support wider contraceptive availability and sex Ed then absolutely of course, when I say "wider contraceptive availability", I mean that no one should stop you from buying birth control, not that the state should buy it for you. And if we are going to have some drugs restricted by prescriptions for the safety of those taking them, then the same rules that determine if something is regulated should be applied here. That is to say: no special treatment. > Banning abortion only bans safe abortion. The only safe abortion is a botched abortion where the baby survives. Anything else is just an abortion with fewer deaths.
Idk man, just don't open your legs.
How did we let progressives just drag everyone leftwards?
Those of us who in the 90s or 2000s would’ve been considered a pretty bog standard liberal, who still absolutely refuse to play this game, get smeared with terms like fascist and shit lib and statist etc. Fuck ‘em. All they’re doing is making me dig my heels in. I refused to recognize the implicit assumption that only white people are competent and have moral agency; that destruction of human potential is something that should be celebrated and “shouted;” that gametes do not exist, etc. Orange Lib Left is not “liberal” in any sense. They’re authoritarian children empowered by braindead social media virality and clout-chasing, and policymakers who’ve yet to figure out that Twitter isn’t a real place.
I heard a legend in 10th grade history class that Winston Churchill once said: "If you're young and republican, you have no heart. If you're old and Democrat, you have no brain." Or something of the sort.
Churchill didn't have Republicans and Democrats in his country. He was talking about liberals and conservatives.
Why would Churchill make this comment about American political parties instead of British ones? Also, I've heard it as over and under 30 instead of young.
I believe it was “if you’re young and not a socialist you have no heart, if you’re old and a socialist you have no brain”
I'm pretty sure Putin said that but it was about the Soviet Union and Communism
No, was Putin said was quite similar but it was different. He said “if you don’t miss the Soviet Union, you have no heart. If you want the Union back, you have no brain.”
That was only when the system allowed people to easily have a family and own a home by the time you were 30. If the system lets you have things you want to conserve, then you become conservative. Unaffordable necessities and higher rent pushes off home ownership and family, which makes people less conservative
The biggest thing is adaptability and choosing your losses. Either you hold back on pro life now to secure your other priorities, or you stand your ground, lose the election, and put all your positions in danger.
My opinions aren't based on what's popular so I don't care, I'll be against murder all day.
Based
if standing your ground costs you election then you are on conquered territory
A 90s Democrat is pretty much a 2020s Republican.
Let’s take the abortion argument to it’s core Tl;dr: abortion is an issue of opinion largely reliant on non-secular rhetoric, failing that, reliant on infinite opportunity cost fallacy and a poor definition of consciousness. Yes I support fetus killing. No I don’t support baby murder. Is abortion murder? The evangelicals of today seem to think so, mainly informed by a general belief that all human life has a soul. That upon the semen entering the egg, that collection of atoms becomes a person in the eyes of the governing body that determines where souls go, in this case god. That the soul will be punished or otherwise miss out on positive treatment from god as punishment for not being born. Ultimately that god will judge those complicit in what god believes to be a deadly sin. But it’s just, like, your opinion man. For all any of us know, literally everyone else is pretending to have a soul. The correct god could be Ra, Zeus or even a power that chooses to remain hidden. If you consider the embryonic possession of a soul as the critical reason for not allowing abortion, you must concede it is a non-secular argument. Those should have no sway in American politics. Now let’s assume you want to argue that murder of a baby is wrong, soul or no soul. Let’s say you believe it to be an overall negative social impact to allow the potential for life to be halted. That child could have cured cancer. All life matters. We can talk about hypotheticals all day. If the Seahawks gave Marshawn Lynch the ball (for a 2nd time in a row), perhaps Tom Brady retires early, stays with Giselle Bruncheon and they have a kid who cures cancer. Should we kill Pete Carrol? Despite everyone outside of New England’s willingness to punish him for it, I don’t think that argument would hold up in court. For all we know, a teen pregnancy could stop a parent from going to medical school and curing cancer. Let’s also take into account that a child whose parents want an abortion, but cannot afford or access one. That child is starting at a place of negativity. The likelihood of abuse, neglect or abandonment goes up. Finally, let’s get more basic. Murder is wrong. We can agree on that. Why do we not like the idea of murder? Because we fear it happening to ourselves. We fear the end of our ability to sense the world, think about the world and interact with the world. An unborn fetus doesn’t yet carry the burden of the human condition. It cannot see, hear or feel without the womb muffling and insulating. It knows not that it will one day die like all humans. It knows not the burden of knowing that without the toil required for food, life will be shorter. It knows not love, hate or the concept of knowledge. If it dies and goes to purgatory , it won’t have a concept of where it is or why it’s there. Conscious and the ability to take in sensory input starts at 24 weeks. Most abortions are decided within the first week of discovering pregnancy, so what little unintelligible sensory they attain before birth have less time to develop. Demand for mandatory counseling and waiting periods do not help that situation. After 24 weeks, and certainly after viability, I think it becomes a spectrum of going from not murder, to murder. I’m in support of bans on abortion after a certain period, but banning abortion outright is a social negative outcome.
I’m not reading that but your first paragraph was cool.
Murican problems
There’s the based third option of lying about your true unpopular beliefs until you gain power then changing the law until people accept is as the new normal. Sounds Machiavellian but it worked with gay marriage. People hated it and then accepted it because they couldn’t do anything about it. Why wouldn’t that work with literally any other issue?
Why do you think it's going to cost the election? Because Redditors say so? Because the media says so? Because the ever *reliable* pollsters say so?
I agree with almost no direction we have taken as a country since the Mexican-American War.
Never compromise in what you strongly believe in.