leopards ... faces
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
57 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3967 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They can enjoy losing them.
They believed some of Trump's bullshit. I suspect this was because they were exposed to more of that bullshit than any counter-messaging. This could be due to isolation from traditional sources of information.
Ultimately, I have to pin that on the Harris campaign. I wanted the prosecutor to prosecute the case against the criminal. But to do that you have to show up to the courtroom. Where is the courtroom these days? It's not on CNN or 60 Minutes, it's wherever the jury is hanging out. That's online. Trump showed up there a lot more than she did.
File under “world’s stupidest motherfuckers”
This year, Trump voters who supported abortion rights amendments may have decided to take Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban,”
Trusting that Trump is telling the truth? What could possibly go wrong...
‘Real salt of the earth people’ vibes here.
In Michigan we elected two Democratic Supreme Court justices by nearly a million votes although they are in the non partisan section. And we went for Trump.
And abortion rights are already protected pretty well here so I don't know how much of a push that was.
There were about 1.3 million less votes for justices as there were for President (couldn't link straight to Michigan results but just click the state).
Meanwhile, the numbers for Kamala are only about 150k higher than for the justices. Meaning nearly all dems voted for aligned justices while a huge number of Trump voters just didn't bother with non partisan races or there were a bunch of Trump voters who swung left on Justices.
I'm hesitant to project any of my own analysis onto those numbers, but it's an interesting discrepancy.
the vanity of these morons. thinking that they're invulnerable.
It sadly makes sense that the abortion referendums backfired bigly. In midterms and off-years it was different because there was nobody at the top of the ticket to lead to strategic voting.
I’ve heard this explained before as the selfishness of believing that if you're protected on a local level, that frees these voters up to vote for other conservative policies on a national level.
That sometimes with these ordinances, they work the other way. If moderate voters pass the statewide protection, it allows them to rationalize a vote for Republicans to do immigration measures and tax cuts, because they feel protected by the state amendment.
states rights don't mean a damn thing when the party of states rights (but only when it serves the far right agenda) enacts a federal ban superseding all the local and state protections.
I'm hoping a federal abortion ban would be unenforceable in states that guarantee protections
We’ve seen how that works out with marijuana legalization.
Haha Supremacy Clause go brrrrrrrr
(It's not funny tho)
Nope, not how our system works. A federal ban would override state law.
The situation would at best mimic legal weed. The feds can 100% legally raid weed stores right now in the majority of states, but doing so is seen as pointless and would be politically unpopular.
The difference between weed stores and abortion clinics is that while both weed and abortion are popular, abortion is easier to villify and attack. They also don't make anywhere near as much money as weed and require doctors to operate, so you have a much higher risk and much lower reward to fight the federal law on a local level.
It'll probably be like when Trump and the DEA signaled they may want to start going after weed smokers in states that legalized it despite it being federally illegal.
The response from the states was, "Go ahead, but we're not helping you in any way."
And the DEA dropped it, I imagine because they didn't have the money or manpower to do pursue further.
Doctors are licensed at the state level, so the fed can't (currently) revoke medical licenses afaik. They can threaten to pull federal funding from hospitals and research centers, but that isn't all funding, and their own voter base has been vocally opposed to anything that makes healthcare worse (and also supported abortion rights at the state level this past election, even in states that went Trump).
Obviously, I could be completely wrong and they've (Trump and his ilk) already got avenues to counteract all of these barriers (and any I'm not thinking of). But I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic that, unless Trump plans on sending federal agents to every surgical suite and pharmacy/drug store in the country, I don't see a federal ban being enforceable without the help of the states.
And they will (hopefully) give Trump the finger. Cautiously optimistic.
The "I got mine" mentality.
Yep, you nailed it with 'selfishness'.
Not just "I've got mine". It's really "I've got mine, fuck you!"
It's selfishness and petty grievances blown all out of proportion.
True, but with that level of selfishness, the "eff you" is there implicitly.
And stupid.