What does this "not taking the bait" shit mean? Is Vance saying that he doesn't have an obligation to his constituents to tell them how he's voting on a bill coming up in the Senate?
That's not how it works, asshole. You weren't sent to Washington to run the country for us. You were sent to Washington to represent your constituents on the national level, and they have an absolute right to know how you are going to vote on any bill.
Representing his constituents???? BWAHAHAHAHA.......THAT'S FUNNY......SAY SOME MORE FUNNY SHIT!!! 75% of his constituents want gun purchase back ground checks......how's that working out......Evan nails it with 'sleepin in the bed you made'.......suck on it douche nuggets......
Is 'taking the bait' some sort of hillbilly thing???
Yeah....grew up in Idaho doing both.....echoing the earlier comment. Hillbilly Elegy boy here thinks he sounds all 'folksy' when he says this shit......Yale Law School turd ain't foolin' nobody......especially backwoods boys like me.....
The D's should refuse to vote for any IVF bill that does not also reject all fetal personhood laws. I see no reason to help them avoid accountability for their horrible consequences.
The inability for the fascist party to anticipate the inevitable outcomes of its reliance on ancient religious dogma means misery for at least 50% of the American populace. Since the Senate and Electoral College are designed to be anti-democratic stopgaps against attacks on land-owning white male dominance, the fascist party doesn’t have to care what happens to women as a result of their assault on science and logic.
TV shows pretend that physicians are scientists. A few are, but most do no research and at best follow protocols. They are scientists as much as an electrician is.
The primary impulse within the flow of history in the United States is class -- you know, how much money you have.
Access to abortion is a critical issue, really, only for the poor. The issue is hugely important, because the prospect of a pregnancy, under a lot of common scenarios, can consign a person to poverty for life, and the life of their child. We don't live in a nation that makes it easy and inexpensive to have healthy babies -- or to care for children, etc., you know all the ways the country sucks in this regard. And even if we did, the moral issue of limiting the state's control over the individual isn't going away.
So, there is a power mismatch — an issue of high importance to a population with low political and social power. That's a recipe for oppression. The power structure sees your weakness and exploits it for their ends. Keeps you down, them up - unless that is, you can somehow find a way to accumulate amounts of political power you never had before. Xing out big sections of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, and changing referendum thresholds to supermajorities are all attempts to frustrate efforts by the oppressed to accumulate political power. It's all connected.
And, Roe v. Wade was controversial precisely because our powerful judiciary empowered people the other two branches of government worked hard over many centuries to keep far from power. You can see how that would upset some people. The Supreme Courts in the mid-20th century issued lots of amazing rulings that tried to limit, or even reverse, the unjustified political powerlessness of the least regarded people in this country -- nonwhites (Brown v. Board of Education), the arrested (Miranda), poor criminal defendants (Gideon). The defendants in a lot of these cases were not typical heroes -- Ernesto Miranda was arrested on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman; and Clarence Earl Gideon was an often penniless drifter who had done plenty of time in prison for minor crimes. These are not Met Gala types. Americans have long consigned them to the shadows.
But, in that era, the Court then crashed through societal biases that automatically discredit poor, women, and people with criminal records to give them the advantages of civil rights and liberties that to that point only the rich and "respectable" enjoyed. The newly empowered cheered. The power structure seethed, and plotted.
Conversely, IVF is, by and large, a critical issue for the wealthy. It is usually elective and expensive. IVF resources, then, are rationed by wealth -- those with the most resources get first and easiest access. There is a power match -- politically powerful people (the rich) incensed over an issue that means a lot to them. That's a recipe for political action. When things move fast in our politics, watch out.
That's why you see schmucks like Trump and Mikey Johnson and others issuing nice, cheap statements full of internal contradictions mouthing that oh yeah we support IVF. Issues that laminate existing political power with high emotion are like unguided missiles. The smarter of the Republicans are worried where the IVF will land, and who will get fragged by it. But, being modern Republicans, their first move is use nice cheap words, ie: lie, to see if that low-energy tactic will work. They're waiting now to see if any evidence arises that this IVF thing will hurt them politically while praying that a few tossed-off statements will be the C-minus work needed to get promoted to the next grade.
It will be the smart political organizer who can with tact and tactics unite the rage of people who support access to abortion and IVF (they have many people in common, of course, but there is that difference in class) with a bold, inspirational movement. If that movement can get people to the polls, this may again be one of those rare times in the history of this nation when political might is aligned with the timeless principles of human compassion. Hopefully as a people we'd win back rights on both these issues, plus enact a whole lot more that could, finally, bring about just a sliver of a speck of an intimation of the peaceful, prosperous, Human Millennium we know is possible if we can political isolate the uncompassionate, greedy and violent interests in our national family.
Isn't about varying importance, it's about varying resources. Both rich and poor hold the issue important. One group has the resources to act positively on that feeling. Another less resourced can't.
Haven't you heard the truism that abortion bans only practically affect poor folks, since the rich will always have means to travel to wherever the procedure is available? Stands to reason that if your means continue to allow you to access something that is now out of the reach of others, you're less -- by and large -- political exercised about it than someone who passion for the issue is the same but whose resources allow no options.
It oppresses us all true, but many wealthy women that are uber religious don't care, and vote for that shit because they know it will never affect them. They care about power, not the rest of us.
I largely agree, except that I think there's a much larger overlap between IVF supporters and abortion access supporters. It lies in the vast suburban wasteland, where the right of access to family planning has been a given for the entire life of the population and the promise of fertility help has more recently become an expectation.
As I said to Mrs. C when Dobbs came down, they don't know what they've unleashed and their subsequent attacks on all kinds of family planning have solidified it. IVF access is just the icing on the frosting.
The most grimly entertaining part of this bonkers election season so far has been watching Rs swerve crazily between banning abortion for their rabid base, and trying to pretend they aren't banning it to independents & whatever moderates they have left.
Speaking of literal Confederate Cindy Hyde Smith, this feels like a decent time to remind people that the country could have had Mike Esper in that seat --
but unfortunately White people didn't care enough about the voter suppression of Black folks in Mississippi to be willing to do anything or assist in efforts to allay it 🤔 😒 😐
is it more important to hyper-parse that to pieces (which can really feel like wasting time, which is a commodity those of us interested in saving democracy are rather short on right now), or is it more important to figure out what we're going to DO about the problem, starting *right now*?
They want their sons to be dominant in the next generation
It's not a hard concept to grasp, and there's plenty of research
But White people who claim to care about democracy don't want to think about it because it makes them UNCOMFORTABLE and also to change it they might actually have to do something
I still haven't recovered from the Tommy Tuberville interview last week where he didn't seem to understand the issue. He was saying the ruling was "a good thing because we need more kids," until the reporter pointed out that they couldn't do IVF anymore if an embryo was considered a person.
They asked him again at the beginning of this week and it seems like he STILL has no fucking idea what IVF is or how the ruling impacts it. Motherfucker had a week to read up on it and either couldn't be bothered or didn't understand what he read. Senate's Dumbest Republican for sure (and it's a crowded field)!
All reasons why Donald liked and endorsed him and pushed Alabamans to get Doug Jones, who cared about the rights of all people, and not just White ones, out of that seat
My hat is off [gallant sweeping gesture] to whoever figured out what Hyde-Smith was trying to say
Ta, Evan. The dog caught the car. Your last paragraph was perfect.
What does this "not taking the bait" shit mean? Is Vance saying that he doesn't have an obligation to his constituents to tell them how he's voting on a bill coming up in the Senate?
That's not how it works, asshole. You weren't sent to Washington to run the country for us. You were sent to Washington to represent your constituents on the national level, and they have an absolute right to know how you are going to vote on any bill.
He means to clarify that they are lying, about supporting IVF.While they pretend they support IVF long enough to get reelected, anyway.
Representing his constituents???? BWAHAHAHAHA.......THAT'S FUNNY......SAY SOME MORE FUNNY SHIT!!! 75% of his constituents want gun purchase back ground checks......how's that working out......Evan nails it with 'sleepin in the bed you made'.......suck on it douche nuggets......
Is 'taking the bait' some sort of hillbilly thing???
Fishing and hunting analogy.
Yeah....grew up in Idaho doing both.....echoing the earlier comment. Hillbilly Elegy boy here thinks he sounds all 'folksy' when he says this shit......Yale Law School turd ain't foolin' nobody......especially backwoods boys like me.....
Same only dad was the hunter, and girl, from rural Maine.
I wonder if this is being done because "THE GAY" use IVF to have their families.
Bingo, they want to outlaw surrogacy, for the same reason.
Did you know that some of the lady ones just use a man and get pregnant and all old school like that? What's a bigot to do?
The D's should refuse to vote for any IVF bill that does not also reject all fetal personhood laws. I see no reason to help them avoid accountability for their horrible consequences.
The inability for the fascist party to anticipate the inevitable outcomes of its reliance on ancient religious dogma means misery for at least 50% of the American populace. Since the Senate and Electoral College are designed to be anti-democratic stopgaps against attacks on land-owning white male dominance, the fascist party doesn’t have to care what happens to women as a result of their assault on science and logic.
"an OB-GYN by trade"
"by trade"
"trade"
Med school = trade school.
TV shows pretend that physicians are scientists. A few are, but most do no research and at best follow protocols. They are scientists as much as an electrician is.
Vincent just gives me Uncanny Valley vibes. It's like his face was drawn by an early AI.
*Vance.
DUCK YOU, AUTOCORRECT!
The primary impulse within the flow of history in the United States is class -- you know, how much money you have.
Access to abortion is a critical issue, really, only for the poor. The issue is hugely important, because the prospect of a pregnancy, under a lot of common scenarios, can consign a person to poverty for life, and the life of their child. We don't live in a nation that makes it easy and inexpensive to have healthy babies -- or to care for children, etc., you know all the ways the country sucks in this regard. And even if we did, the moral issue of limiting the state's control over the individual isn't going away.
So, there is a power mismatch — an issue of high importance to a population with low political and social power. That's a recipe for oppression. The power structure sees your weakness and exploits it for their ends. Keeps you down, them up - unless that is, you can somehow find a way to accumulate amounts of political power you never had before. Xing out big sections of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, and changing referendum thresholds to supermajorities are all attempts to frustrate efforts by the oppressed to accumulate political power. It's all connected.
And, Roe v. Wade was controversial precisely because our powerful judiciary empowered people the other two branches of government worked hard over many centuries to keep far from power. You can see how that would upset some people. The Supreme Courts in the mid-20th century issued lots of amazing rulings that tried to limit, or even reverse, the unjustified political powerlessness of the least regarded people in this country -- nonwhites (Brown v. Board of Education), the arrested (Miranda), poor criminal defendants (Gideon). The defendants in a lot of these cases were not typical heroes -- Ernesto Miranda was arrested on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman; and Clarence Earl Gideon was an often penniless drifter who had done plenty of time in prison for minor crimes. These are not Met Gala types. Americans have long consigned them to the shadows.
But, in that era, the Court then crashed through societal biases that automatically discredit poor, women, and people with criminal records to give them the advantages of civil rights and liberties that to that point only the rich and "respectable" enjoyed. The newly empowered cheered. The power structure seethed, and plotted.
Conversely, IVF is, by and large, a critical issue for the wealthy. It is usually elective and expensive. IVF resources, then, are rationed by wealth -- those with the most resources get first and easiest access. There is a power match -- politically powerful people (the rich) incensed over an issue that means a lot to them. That's a recipe for political action. When things move fast in our politics, watch out.
That's why you see schmucks like Trump and Mikey Johnson and others issuing nice, cheap statements full of internal contradictions mouthing that oh yeah we support IVF. Issues that laminate existing political power with high emotion are like unguided missiles. The smarter of the Republicans are worried where the IVF will land, and who will get fragged by it. But, being modern Republicans, their first move is use nice cheap words, ie: lie, to see if that low-energy tactic will work. They're waiting now to see if any evidence arises that this IVF thing will hurt them politically while praying that a few tossed-off statements will be the C-minus work needed to get promoted to the next grade.
It will be the smart political organizer who can with tact and tactics unite the rage of people who support access to abortion and IVF (they have many people in common, of course, but there is that difference in class) with a bold, inspirational movement. If that movement can get people to the polls, this may again be one of those rare times in the history of this nation when political might is aligned with the timeless principles of human compassion. Hopefully as a people we'd win back rights on both these issues, plus enact a whole lot more that could, finally, bring about just a sliver of a speck of an intimation of the peaceful, prosperous, Human Millennium we know is possible if we can political isolate the uncompassionate, greedy and violent interests in our national family.
Abortion is just as important to wealthy and middle class women as IVF. Making reproductive choice a class issue is a category error.
It affects the poor the most, as it was designed to do, others can go out of state and get care.
Isn't about varying importance, it's about varying resources. Both rich and poor hold the issue important. One group has the resources to act positively on that feeling. Another less resourced can't.
Haven't you heard the truism that abortion bans only practically affect poor folks, since the rich will always have means to travel to wherever the procedure is available? Stands to reason that if your means continue to allow you to access something that is now out of the reach of others, you're less -- by and large -- political exercised about it than someone who passion for the issue is the same but whose resources allow no options.
Category exactly right.
It’s about women and the oppression thereof, regardless of class. But your medical practice may differ from mine.
It oppresses us all true, but many wealthy women that are uber religious don't care, and vote for that shit because they know it will never affect them. They care about power, not the rest of us.
I largely agree, except that I think there's a much larger overlap between IVF supporters and abortion access supporters. It lies in the vast suburban wasteland, where the right of access to family planning has been a given for the entire life of the population and the promise of fertility help has more recently become an expectation.
As I said to Mrs. C when Dobbs came down, they don't know what they've unleashed and their subsequent attacks on all kinds of family planning have solidified it. IVF access is just the icing on the frosting.
The most grimly entertaining part of this bonkers election season so far has been watching Rs swerve crazily between banning abortion for their rabid base, and trying to pretend they aren't banning it to independents & whatever moderates they have left.
Trumpican Party: Just because I'm putting this chain around your neck, doesn't mean I will use it to control you. Don't be SILLY. You can trust me.
Is JD Vance this irritable all the time, or just when he's brought face-to-face with his party's inanities, contradictions and outright lies?
Maybe he's that rare unicorn, the self-aware Republican.
If that's the case, I'd be irritable too if I knew I was completely over my head on the national stage and constantly making a fool of myself.
i'm not sure he's active enough to be irritable. it's a question of who's pulling which string today.
I absolutely adore Evan’s Writing 💯🤩
Speaking of literal Confederate Cindy Hyde Smith, this feels like a decent time to remind people that the country could have had Mike Esper in that seat --
but unfortunately White people didn't care enough about the voter suppression of Black folks in Mississippi to be willing to do anything or assist in efforts to allay it 🤔 😒 😐
Is it not caring or actively promoting a renewed Confederacy?
The short answer is "it depends"
Perhaps the larger point is this --
is it more important to hyper-parse that to pieces (which can really feel like wasting time, which is a commodity those of us interested in saving democracy are rather short on right now), or is it more important to figure out what we're going to DO about the problem, starting *right now*?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4qcPW55tqU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1KZ5-6It-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UED3kubttcY&t=92s
I still don’t understand how any woman can be a Republican.
I don’t understand how any sentient human can be a Republican.
White supremacy
They want their sons to be dominant in the next generation
It's not a hard concept to grasp, and there's plenty of research
But White people who claim to care about democracy don't want to think about it because it makes them UNCOMFORTABLE and also to change it they might actually have to do something
Many American women who will be most affected by these policies are too young to be allowed to vote at this moment. Let that one sink in.
I still haven't recovered from the Tommy Tuberville interview last week where he didn't seem to understand the issue. He was saying the ruling was "a good thing because we need more kids," until the reporter pointed out that they couldn't do IVF anymore if an embryo was considered a person.
He's such an idiot, he thought it was a form of abortion.
They asked him again at the beginning of this week and it seems like he STILL has no fucking idea what IVF is or how the ruling impacts it. Motherfucker had a week to read up on it and either couldn't be bothered or didn't understand what he read. Senate's Dumbest Republican for sure (and it's a crowded field)!
Is that the first time you've listened to him be that stupid ...?
See, the thing is, Tommy is really fucking stupid.
He's aggressively stupid, and also greedy
And a full white supremacist as he was literally trained up to be in the full AND DOCUMENTED Alabama tradition
https://youtu.be/XRmAj6noc4I?si=C8Lvqjh88S2Jz4dj
All reasons why Donald liked and endorsed him and pushed Alabamans to get Doug Jones, who cared about the rights of all people, and not just White ones, out of that seat
Willfully ignorant.
I don't think he is willfully ignorant. He once said that the three branches of government were the House, the Senate, and the Executive.
I think he is just ignorant, and way out of his depth.
He uses 'ignorance' to manipulate.
Willfully ignorant.
And taught to be since he was in university.
https://youtu.be/XRmAj6noc4I?si=C8Lvqjh88S2Jz4dj