2020 US Presidential Election

[Ed209]

These people are a model to follow: everyone should be striking. Workers are being ROBBED by politicians and central bankers.

Echoes of lockdown as employees prepare to work from home and business leaders warn of painful economic hit

If everyone demands a pay rise now then it will bake in a new level of inflation that will spiral on and on, and if anything, it will speed up the rate at which the economy will collapse. It's unsustainable.

The RMT is being selfish as I said in my previous post. Some people can't get to their cancer treatment appointments (and other such important things) without the trains running. This is a knock-on effect from the lockdowns during COVID-19 and should have been expected, especially with all the money printing that has been done in an attempt to cover over the fragile cracks that have been left from decades of bad monetary policies.

Let the cost be reabsorbed from the profits the banks are currently making since it was the taxpayers that bailed them out. What did we get in return for bailing out a toxic industry? We should have let it all collapse because nothing has changed.

In the UK, we had the recapitalisation of RBS and Lloyds, and the nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

Check out this excerpt:

Credit Guarantee Scheme: Launched at the same time as the recapitalisation programme, the scheme allowed eligible participants (adequately capitalised, UK incorporated deposit-taking banks and building societies) to issue unsecured debt securities to raise capital with taxpayers acting as the guarantor.

Taxpayer exposure was capped at £250 billion and peaked at £140 billion before the scheme's closure in 2012. A fee (50 basis points plus 100 per cent of the institution's median five-year Credit Default Swap (CDS) spread during the twelve months to 7 October 2008) was charged for use of the scheme and 14 institutions took advantage of taxpayer support ranging from Barclays to Tesco.​

And what did I/we get in return for helping prop up an entire industry? Nothing. What they did was unprecedented and it shows how deep the corruption runs.

One could argue that all we achieved with QE was a delay of the inevitable, because as soon as the process was reversed, this was always going to be the result. We put a weak band-aid on and now that has fallen off we are back to where we started.

It is healthy to let companies and industries collapse if they deserve to. It is toxic to pretend that everything is ok and to continue doing things in the same manner, so we either resolve the core issues and live in a monetary sound way, or we endure the chaos of people striking to our own detriment.

People don't know what is best for them because most have a very short term view of the world. They would rather have a short term cash injection now than ensure our future prosperity and that of our children and of our children's children.

It is the same people who want this strike that will only vote if there is more spending involved. They encourage the money printers to be running at all times.

 

[Juan]

If everyone demands a pay rise now then it will bake in a new level of inflation that will spiral on and on, and if anything, it will speed up the rate at which the economy will collapse. It's unsustainable.

The other option that, according to you, is also "unsustainable" is raising interest rates once a month until they reach at least 10%. That would mean giving back some value to salaries.

Otherwise people will either strike or not work at all. That's the logical path to follow. People are only doing what is logical.

It is healthy to let companies and industries collapse if they deserve to. It is toxic to pretend that everything is ok and to continue doing things in the same manner, so we either resolve the core issues and live in a monetary sound way, or we endure the chaos of people striking to our own detriment.

QE was designed to take from the poor and working people and give the money away to rich people, whose companies were going to collapse. After years and years those companies are not profitable, so they should just fall. This is capitalism. We do not live in the Soviet Union.

This is a market economy and the companies who are in the red should just declare bankruptcy.

In Spain the enlarged state (with the money of the taxpayers and EU funds) has been keeping bankrupt companies going for like 10 years. This cannot go on!!!

Actually the people working the less are living in a dream: they are being paid a full salary for staying at home. For instance, workers at car manufacturers. Their manufacturing plants are closed and they do NOT go to work but are still paid a full salary.

This is so unfair to other workers! We are not responsible for the personnel of car manufacturers. We cannot pay crazy taxes to pay people who do NOT work a full salary.

 

[Juan]

The ECB no longer hides its intention of ruining the citizens of the Eurozone:

Food Prices

Eurozone's shoppers to swallow more super-sized food price rises, warns ECB

The useless Lagarde and also Luis de Guindos must go home. These people are not prepared to be in charge of the ECB... they are just clueless idiots put there by corrupt politicians.

 

[Ed209]

The other option that, according to you, is also "unsustainable" is raising interest rates once a month until they reach at least 10%. That would mean giving back some value to salaries.

Raising the rates to 10% would obliterate the economy in this economic climate and with debt-to-GDP the way it is. That isn't an option.

I'm emphasising how fucked up everything is. The RMT strike makes little sense at this point because they are all well above the breadline and have jobs. Some are moaning about the fact that they worked throughout the pandemic when the way I see it is they were lucky to have had the opportunity to work during those times. I didn't, and many others didn't either. It makes much more sense to get inflation under control first before we start raising the salaries of those who are already on decent money. Once inflation has been brought under control, then we can assess what percentage of a rise everyone should get. Doing it before will just feed the inflation spiral.

QE was designed to take from the poor and working people and give the money away to rich people, whose companies were going to collapse. After years and years those companies are not profitable, so they should just fall. This is capitalism. We do not live in the Soviet Union.

You're repeating my arguments. They should have let it all collapse originally, but they didn't. They started printing enormous amounts of Monopoly money, and they still are. They are merely toning it down, but you can be assured that they will go back to it. They will kick the can down the road until they no longer can. The whole system is like a deck of cards.

This is a market economy and the companies who are in the red should just declare bankruptcy.

They don't, though. They just constantly bail them out, especially if they are in the banking sector. Banks are not allowed to fail, so they prop them up by stealing people's savings.

This is so unfair to other workers! We are not responsible for the personnel of car manufacturers. We cannot pay crazy taxes to

I agree, and it's something I've stated numerous times. We need to get back to real productivity that actually adds value and creates wealth. All this pretending we have a strong economy, when in reality we are just printing loads of money to make everyone feel prosperous, is ridiculous. We need currencies that cannot be inflated at the whim of a few in power, and that is why proper gold-backed currencies were better. We need to end the Ponzi-like mechanisms that are being used and get back to the reality of real GDP.

 

[Juan]

I'm emphasising how fucked up everything is. The RMT strike makes little sense at this point because they are all well above the breadline and have jobs.

They defend their salaries and exercise their RIGHT to strike to defend their working conditions, so I fully support them.

We need to get back to real productivity that actually adds value and creates wealth. All this pretending we have a strong economy, when in reality we are just printing loads of money to make everyone feel prosperous, is ridiculous.

There is real productivity in many sectors and workers are not rewarded accordingly. This is why they strike and demand higher salaries to keep purchasing power and hedge against inflation... and better working conditions.

If the ECB keeps fueling bubbles:

- There will be no working mobility due to the high cost of housing. People no longer move to take up a job opportunity in a far away region because the cost of housing plus the hefty commissions charged by greedy real estate agents are just nonsensical. It pays off not to move and stay on benefits or unemployed. Anyway all those people NOT working are earning more or less like if they were working.

- No one will spend. This will become a moral issue. People will not buy meat at any price. They know the prices of items and products and above a certain threshold they just will not consume them, or lower their consumption.

- People will not spend of discretionary items like clothing, shoes, accessories etc.

- People eventually will stop traveling. All this nonsense about rising ticket prices, draconian conditions for the passengers etc. Traveling has become a pain in the ass. Not worth it. My friend tried to go for a cruise in the Middle East, due to COVID-19 restrictions he had to print a ton of information, carry out repeatedly COVID-19 tests during the whole trip etc. There was a full folder of printed material to do this "luxury trip". In the end he admitted the whole thing was nonsense and he did not enjoy the trip at all. It seems like a nuisance, like dealing with the IRS during holidays or something like that.

 

[Ed209]

They defend their salaries and exercise their RIGHT to strike to defend their working conditions, so I fully support them.

But the macro-economic outlook is so bad - which I know isn't their fault - that they could potentially be putting a nail into the coffin of not only their jobs but other people's as well. There's a risk of major job losses all over the country if more pressure is put upon wages at this moment in time. We are heading towards a recession and that should kill part of the demand that's causing some of the inflation. If they succeed then where do you think the money will come from to pay their higher salaries? The answer is the cost of a train ticket will go up and they are already ridiculously expensive here. It's cheaper to fly abroad than to catch a train on some routes. Higher prices will directly affect all other workers that rely on the train network to commute to work, so it will have a knock-on effect.

I support everyone's right to a fair wage, but the timing of their strike is just terrible. One needs to look at the bigger picture. If nothing changes in a couple of years and inflation is still out of control then they can strike away because at that point we'll all be screwed anyway. We should be aiming towards an economic recovery that's sustainable.

There is real productivity in many sectors and workers are not rewarded accordingly. This is why they strike and demand higher salaries to keep purchasing power and hedge against inflation... and better working conditions.

This is true, but I don't think the RMT fit into this mould. They are well paid and their members had job security all throughout the pandemic unlike many other industries. I still maintain that they are being selfish in this instance.

There will be no working mobility due to the high cost of housing.

If interest rates hit 10% then mortgages will become unattainable for the vast majority, and rental prices will skyrocket.

It pays off not to move and stay on benefits or unemployed. Anyway all those people NOT working are earning more or less like if they were working.

If there's no GDP driving growth then everyone will suffer. The quality of life that people have become accustomed to will become a distant memory. I agree that people should be fairly rewarded for the work they do to help drive the economy forward, and those that are lazy and are reliant upon handouts shouldn't be rewarded to a degree that they don't need to work. I have to strongly emphasise here that I am not talking about people with disabilities who are unable to work. I'm talking about the genuinely lazy people who live off the state and contribute nothing.

No one will spend. This will become a moral issue. People will not buy meat at any price.

This is what we need to bring inflation down. The demand and consumption of products with strained supply chains needs to be dampened.

A huge problem is the energy prices and the war in Ukraine. At some point oil will top out and crash like it has done during every other recession. It always peaks just prior usually.

 

[Luman]

Here's the latest totally incorrect statement by Kamala Harris, Vice President of the United States of America.

VP Harris botches Juneteenth history lesson about '400 years of slavery'
Vice President Kamala Harris bungled a history lesson about the Juneteenth holiday Monday, telling kids that black people were enslaved in America for 400 years — overstating the actual time period by more than 150 years.

"I think that we all know today is a day to celebrate the principle of freedom," Harris told a group of about two dozen elementary school-age children at the National Museum of African American History & Culture in Washington. "And think about it in terms of the context of history, knowing that black people in America were not free for 400 years of slavery."

"Let this be a day that is a day to celebrate the principle of freedom, but to speak about it honestly and accurately, both in the context of history and current application," Harris went on during her apparently extemporaneous remarks.

The first African slaves in the American colonies arrived in 1619 in Virginia. Slavery was abolished through the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in 1865 — ending 246 years of the practice, not 400.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/20/kamala-harris-botches-juneteenth-history-lesson-on-slavery/

 

[Juan]

But the macro-economic outlook is so bad - which I know isn't their fault - that they could potentially be putting a nail into the coffin of not only their jobs but other people's as well. There's a risk of major job losses all over the country if more pressure is put upon wages at this moment in time. We are heading towards a recession and that should kill part of the demand that's causing some of the inflation. If they succeed then where do you think the money will come from to pay their higher salaries? The answer is the cost of a train ticket will go up and they are already ridiculously expensive here. It's cheaper to fly abroad than to catch a train on some routes. Higher prices will directly affect all other workers that rely on the train network to commute to work, so it will have a knock-on effect.

Railway workers are right when they strike to defend their salaries.

The people responsible for the crisis are politicians and central bankers and they are not held responsible. They do not make a gesture towards the general population either, cutting their salaries etc... on top of that they have been blatantly stealing from all the other citizens.

So you are telling me that railway workers have NO right to strike while Bojo and his troupe steal from everyone? While that useless Lagarde steals from our salaries, our rents, our savings???

Those people should be hanged for what they are doing! It is just criminal and they are doing this on purpose.

How can Lagarde keep interest rates at ZERO with inflation at 10%??? This is CRIMINAL! She shoud be subjected to criminal prosecution.

 

[Ed209]

The people responsible for the crisis are politicians and central bankers and they are not held responsible. They do not make a gesture towards the general population either, cutting their salaries etc... on top of that they

It is absolutely the fault of the central banks for years of bad policy, and I agree that the politicians shouldn't have taken a pay rise over the last two years (as I stated previously). It is outrageous that they take a hefty pay rise whilst everyone else watches their pay go down. It's an insult. It is also because of COVID-19 affecting the supply chains and now there's the added strain of the war in Ukraine.

So you are telling me that railway workers have NO right to strike while Bojo and his troupe steal from everyone? While that useless Lagarde steals from our salaries, our rents, our savings???

They have a right because we live in a democracy, but I consider it just as selfish as the politicians taking a big pay rise at this time. It's to the detriment of everyone because it will keep inflation high and it can potentially make it go a lot higher if everyone else starts demanding more as well. It will all get baked in. The economy is shrinking rapidly, so it makes no sense to do this. People only see what's immediately in front of them, and have no idea about the bigger picture. A recession will kill demand, so inflation should start to creep down off the back of that (so it's advisable that we all ride out the storm), but if everyone demands an unsustainable and unplayable wage rise, then there will be a huge amount of job losses incoming, less productivity off the back of it, and more stagnation. Is it better to have a job with a little less pay in the short term, or no job at all for the long term?

I think before we all start demanding more money we need to see what the data is saying.

Those people should be hanged for what they are doing! It is just criminal and they are doing this on purpose.

It is criminal, but nobody cares. As I've said repeatedly: why was nobody jailed for collapsing the world's economy? It's laughable really. They can do whatever they want.

The last thing we want is years of stagflation.

 

[Juan]

This summer cabin crews at Ryanair and Easyjet are going on strike. Handling agents are also going on strike. And there are shortages in personnel to carry out the security checks at airports... so it will be a chaotic summer for those who wish to go on vacation.

Taking into account that many people will lose their flights, hotel booking etc, and will not be entitled to a refund, I would rather stay at home. At least it will not be a waste of money on top of frozen salaries and rampant inflation provoked by those idiots from the European Central Bank.

 

[Ed209]

This summer cabin crews at Ryanair and Easyjet are going on strike. Handling agents are also going on strike. And there are shortages in personnel to carry out the security checks at airports... so it will be a chaotic summer for those who wish to go on vacation.

Taking into account that many people will lose their flights, hotel booking etc, and will not be entitled to a refund, I would rather stay at home. At least it will not be a waste of money on top of frozen salaries and rampant inflation provoked by those idiots from the European Central Bank.

We are largely in agreement as there is a grey area where we meet in the middle. We just have different macro views, that's all.

 

[Juan]

There is going to be a strike in Brussels Airlines too.

 

[Juan]

Janet Yellen "I was WRONG on inflation":



In the next chapter: "Christine Lagarde: I was WRONG on everything!"

 

[Juan]

Heathrow faces summer strikes as unions demand pandemic pay cut is reinstated
BA accused of using 'fire and rehire' tactics during lockdown to slash 10% off Unite and GMB workers' pay

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...trikes-as-unions-demand-pay-cut-is-reinstated

 

[Juan]

 

[Christiaan]

Thomas says cases protecting same-sex marriage, birth control should now be overturned

In their dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elana Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor said that today's ruling doesn't just turn back the clock on reproductive rights, it also "places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage."

Writing for the court's conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alitotook note of the dissenters' concerns, but he dismissed them as foolish. The far-right jurist suggested his center-left colleagues were simply trying to "stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights."

Perhaps Alito skipped past the concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. It read in part:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous' ... we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

Thomas added that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell deserve to be overturned because they were "demonstrably erroneous decisions."

For folks who may not immediately recognize the names of these cases, let's quickly review what Thomas was arguing.

• Griswold v. Connecticut: In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples' access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans' right to privacy.
• Lawrence v. Texas: In 2003, in a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In the process, the high court, for the first time, made sexual activity between same-sex partners legal in the United States.
• Obergefell v. Hodges: In 2015, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the right to get married cannot be limited solely to straight couples. In the process, the justices brought marriage equality to every state in the nation.

Alito would have us believe there's no cause for concern, and that the demise of Roe does not necessarily mean the demise of other existing civil rights.

And yet, there's Thomas, already putting in writing his belief that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell were "demonstrably erroneous decisions" in need of overturning.

To be sure, Thomas is one justice, not five, and the fact that he wants to turn back the clock does not mean he'll succeed. But in the very recent past, many believed the Roe precedent would endure, too, and now we know better.

 

[Christiaan]

 

[ZFire]

Alito would have us believe there's no cause for concern, and that the demise of Roe does not necessarily mean the demise of other existing civil rights.

And yet, there's Thomas, already putting in writing his belief that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell were "demonstrably erroneous decisions" in need of overturning.

To be sure, Thomas is one justice, not five, and the fact that he wants to turn back the clock does not mean he'll succeed. But in the very recent past, many believed the Roe precedent would endure, too, and now we know better.

By saying this, it's basically a shameless signal for someone to start a court case in a lower court so it can start making its way up the higher appellate courts until it finally reaches the Supreme Court, where they can finally end it. I won't be surprised if it happens in some religious red state. The extremist fundamentalism of the American evangelical movement is still going strong and its members are a highly motivated bunch.

Clarence Thomas is probably the worst justice member in the Supreme Court by far. He's a fanatic for catholicism. And since the Supreme Court now have the 5-4 conservative majority (thanks to Trump btw), it's no wonder this religious nut job wants to go after gay marriage and contraception next.

As for the overturning of Roe v Wade and leaving the right to abortion up to the states, well that's just laughable. Does the court not realize the potential legal ramification that could likely arise from this ruling? Suppose a red state like Alabama criminalizes abortion, what happens if the resident living there flees to a pro choice state like New York right after being issued an arrest warrant for illegal smuggling of abortion pills. Must New York extradite this person back to Alabama at once? Because you can bet they won't and instead would likely grant the person more access to abortion services in NY. Then Alabama sues NY and ligation between the two states commences. This is off the top of my head, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this. The amount of disputes among opposing states that could arise from this ruling is going to be a complete shit show. And the laughable part is, the Supreme Court gets to hold trials for state vs state cases.

View attachment 50718

Democrats singing "God Bless America" is cringe, but this tweet has no understanding on how US government works which doesn't surprise me one bit. The powers of the federal gov't is separated into 3 branches: The legislative branch (Congress), the executive branch (President), and the judicial branch (Supreme Court). Congress makes the laws, President executes the laws, and the Supreme Court interpret the laws (under judicial review) and ultimately tell us what the law is. There's nothing the House and Senate Democrats can do to avert a Supreme Court ruling. They failed hard in 2016 and now they're paying the price.

The Supreme Court is argubly the most powerful branch as their court rulings will have lasting impact for the country and shape its direction.

 

[Juan]

America, the land of freedom... please let me laugh at that.

 

[Shelbylynn]

View attachment 50718

They're so useless it's pathetic.

 

[Ed209]

Thomas says cases protecting same-sex marriage, birth control should now be overturned

In their dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elana Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor said that today's ruling doesn't just turn back the clock on reproductive rights, it also "places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage."

Writing for the court's conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alitotook note of the dissenters' concerns, but he dismissed them as foolish. The far-right jurist suggested his center-left colleagues were simply trying to "stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights."

Perhaps Alito skipped past the concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas. It read in part:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous' ... we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

Thomas added that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell deserve to be overturned because they were "demonstrably erroneous decisions."

For folks who may not immediately recognize the names of these cases, let's quickly review what Thomas was arguing.

• Griswold v. Connecticut: In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples' access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans' right to privacy.
• Lawrence v. Texas: In 2003, in a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In the process, the high court, for the first time, made sexual activity between same-sex partners legal in the United States.
• Obergefell v. Hodges: In 2015, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the right to get married cannot be limited solely to straight couples. In the process, the justices brought marriage equality to every state in the nation.

Alito would have us believe there's no cause for concern, and that the demise of Roe does not necessarily mean the demise of other existing civil rights.

And yet, there's Thomas, already putting in writing his belief that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell were "demonstrably erroneous decisions" in need of overturning.

To be sure, Thomas is one justice, not five, and the fact that he wants to turn back the clock does not mean he'll succeed. But in the very recent past, many believed the Roe precedent would endure, too, and now we know better.

It's 2022 now; why on Earth are people still opposed to gay marriage? What impact does it have on other people's lives? It's the unfortunate effect of religious doctrine that some take too far.

As far as abortion goes, I believe it's the woman's right to choose as long as it is done early. I think it's appalling that people who are raped are made to have the baby.

 

[Christiaan]

By saying this, it's basically a shameless signal for someone to start a court case in a lower court so it can start making its way up the higher appellate courts until it finally reaches the Supreme Court, where they can finally end it. I won't be surprised if it happens in some religious red state. The extremist fundamentalism of the American evangelical movement is still going strong and its members are a highly motivated bunch.

Clarence Thomas is probably the worst justice member in the Supreme Court by far. He's a fanatic for catholicism. And since the Supreme Court now have the 5-4 conservative majority (thanks to Trump btw), it's no wonder this religious nut job wants to go after gay marriage and contraception next.

As for the overturning of Roe v Wade and leaving the right to abortion up to the states, well that's just laughable. Does the court not realize the potential legal ramification that could likely arise from this ruling? Suppose a red state like Alabama criminalizes abortion, what happens if the resident living there flees to a pro choice state like New York right after being issued an arrest warrant for illegal smuggling of abortion pills. Must New York extradite this person back to Alabama at once? Because you can bet they won't and instead would likely grant the person more access to abortion services in NY. Then Alabama sues NY and ligation between the two states commences. This is off the top of my head, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this. The amount of disputes among opposing states that could arise from this ruling is going to be a complete shit show. And the laughable part is, the Supreme Court gets to hold trials for state vs state cases.

Democrats singing "God Bless America" is cringe, but this tweet has no understanding on how US government works which doesn't surprise me one bit. The powers of the federal gov't is separated into 3 branches: The legislative branch (Congress), the executive branch (President), and the judicial branch (Supreme Court). Congress makes the laws, President executes the laws, and the Supreme Court interpret the laws (under judicial review) and ultimately tell us what the law is. There's nothing the House and Senate Democrats can do to avert a Supreme Court ruling. They failed hard in 2016 and now they're paying the price.

The Supreme Court is argubly the most powerful branch as their court rulings will have lasting impact for the country and shape its direction.

From what I gather, codifying women's right to choose into federal law via the legislative route could have been a possibility to circumvent the decision made by the Supreme Court.

From a historical context, Obama missed his chance in codifying Roe V. Wade as the Freedom of Choice Act. He was elected on this platform and he promised in 2007 that he would implement it. He had a majority in Congress in his first term, but in 2009 he had decided that he saw no urgency in codifying this act. That was a missed opportunity.

And now, it's the same old story all over again. The Dems have a majority in Congress but lack the willpower (and I'm talking about moderates and some centrists) to protect women. Progressives have already proposed to end the filibuster as a means to codify Roe v. Wade. It's now really up to other Democrats to follow suit.

 

[Christiaan]

It's 2022 now; why on Earth are people still opposed to gay marriage? What impact does it have on other people's lives? It's the unfortunate effect of religious doctrine that some take too far.

As far as abortion goes, I believe it's the woman's right to choose as long as it is done early. I think it's appalling that people who are raped are made to have the baby.

Religion is certainly an important factor, but we should also remind ourselves that the current electoral system isn't working. This system basically allows the will of a minority government to dictate the will of the majority by using the judicial branch to its advantage.

 

[Christiaan]

From the Senator of Connecticut.

 

[Lilah]

As far as abortion goes, I believe it's the woman's right to choose as long as it is done early. I think it's appalling that people who are raped are made to have the baby

I believe most Americans would agree with you and support banning late stage abortions or abortions where pain is inflicted on the fetus, etc. Legally speaking, abortions are not explicitly protected by the Constitution; when Roe v. Wade passed it was on shaky grounds. Personally, I believe states need to have a special election on this issue or by popular vote (like Prop 16 in California on affirmative action). Some states came out quickly with total abortion bans (except when concerning life of mother), based on votes from state representatives, but I doubt most of a state's population would be this strict. Like, if Prop 16 was decided by state representatives, very likely it would have had a different outcome.

 

[kingsfan]

I believe most Americans would agree with you and support banning late stage abortions or abortions where pain is inflicted on the fetus, etc. Legally speaking, abortions are not explicitly protected by the Constitution; when Roe v. Wade passed it was on shaky grounds. Personally, I believe states need to have a special election on this issue or by popular vote (like Prop 16 in California on affirmative action). Some states came out quickly with total abortion bans (except when concerning life of mother), based on votes from state representatives, but I doubt most of a state's population would be this strict. Like, if Prop 16 was decided by state representatives, very likely it would have had a different outcome.

Abortions were legal, common, and excepted when the constitution was written.

 

[Luman]

Abortions were legal, common, and excepted when the constitution was written.

Slavery, indentured servitude, and many other unpleasant things were legal and accepted, when the constitution was written.

 

[kingsfan]

Slavery, indentured servitude, and many other unpleasant things were legal and accepted, when the constitution was written.

Ad hominem. I'm talking about abortion.

 

[Shelbylynn]

And now, it's the same old story all over again. The Dems have a majority in Congress but lack the willpower (and I'm talking about moderates and some centrists) to protect women. Progressives have already proposed to end the filibuster as a means to codify Roe v. Wade. It's now really up to other Democrats to follow suit.

They were too busy holding it over our heads so that we vote for them to actually DO anything about it. How many elections have they basically said "if you don't vote for us, the Republicans will take power and your rights are at stake" and yet here we are.

People voted, campaigned, and donated for them and we have zilch to show for it.

Now more than ever it is obvious who the Supreme Court and the constitution really protects.

But it's gonna be alright because Nancy read us a poem.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Paul1980]

They were too busy holding it over our heads so that we vote for them to actually DO anything about it. How many elections have they basically said "if you don't vote for us, the Republicans will take power and your rights are at stake" and yet here we are.

People voted, campaigned, and donated for them and we have zilch to show for it.

Now more than ever it is obvious who the Supreme Court and the constitution really protects.

But it's gonna be alright because Nancy read us a poem.

I'm not holding my breath.

But people didn't vote for Hillary. She lost, with some help from Russia. But she still lost. So, no, people didn't vote.

Also, nobody convinced Ginsburg to retire. That was also a huge mistake. They should have a plan and they obviously didn't. No more liberal justices over 75.

We were also lied to by Kavanaugh and others. Everyone knew they were lying anyways, but I think those people will burn in hell if they really believe in that, but they don't, in my opinion.

But as I say, we also cede this whole pro-life thing to those people. They aren't pro-life = they are pro body control. They don't like gun control. Well, I don't like body control. And I say wait until these young catholic do gooder girls have to have a still-born. Or wait till they are raped, god forbid, or worst, raped by a priest or a family member.