Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[LinekersLegs]

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

IMO, the only reason that your average liberal in the public eye doesn't express a preference for banning smoking outright is because they're smart enough to know it isn't feasible under present political conditions. They lie about their sincere preferences because they know it's counter-productive to express them.

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

[LinekersLegs]

There are ways to solve the secondhand smoke problem. They cost money, which is why we don't implement them. IMO, the only reason that your average liberal in the public eye doesn't express a preference for banning smoking outright is because they're smart enough to know it isn't feasible under present political conditions. They lie about their sincere preferences because they know it's counter-productive to express them.


I wholeheartedly agree that we're not headed for a more libertarian social agenda any time soon. All I'm getting at is that if we took a more libertarian approach to social policy while ignoring what the libertarians have to say about economic issues (because Samuelson proved them dead wrong, with math, about seventy-five years ago), we probably would have a lot less conflict in this country.

To put that another way - I can prove to you that we need strong, independent government agencies that are not corrupt. I can prove that the market isn't going to solve the problems agencies like the FDA, EPA, SEC and state insurance regulators exist to solve, and that collectively we are harmed at the expense of a few if they fail at those jobs. It is impossible to prove that you shouldn't be doing whatever it is you prefer to do with your body, so long as you're not exposing kids to whatever you're doing or engaging in dangerous behaviors like drinking and driving as a consequence.

Frankly Martin I am in an absolutely foul mood so tbh all that just seems like idealized philosophical handwaving to me that does absolutely zilch to address any of the very real problems that people are about to face in practice, sorry.

 

[verreauxi]

One obvious conclusion, but still needs to be repeated:



"We found no evidence that abortion rates were lower in settings where abortion was restricted. The gradation in type of restrictions also made little difference on the abortion rate due to unintended pregnancy rates being substantially higher in countries where abortion was restricted. This finding means that some women in these restrictive settings must take legal and physical risks to seek abortion care, corroborating findings in earlier studies28–31 that show that women with unintended pregnancies rely on abortion even in settings where abortion is restricted."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X20303156

 

[BlueTX]

There are ways to solve the secondhand smoke problem. They cost money, which is why we don't implement them. IMO, the only reason that your average liberal in the public eye doesn't express a preference for banning smoking outright is because they're smart enough to know it isn't feasible under present political conditions. They lie about their sincere preferences because they know it's counter-productive to express them.


I wholeheartedly agree that we're not headed for a more libertarian social agenda any time soon. All I'm getting at is that if we took a more libertarian approach to social policy while ignoring what the libertarians have to say about economic issues (because Samuelson proved them dead wrong, with math, about seventy-five years ago), we probably would have a lot less conflict in this country.

To put that another way - I can prove to you that we need strong, independent government agencies that are not corrupt. I can prove that the market isn't going to solve the problems agencies like the FDA, EPA, SEC and state insurance regulators exist to solve, and that collectively we are harmed at the expense of a few if they fail at those jobs. It is impossible to prove that you shouldn't be doing whatever it is you prefer to do with your body, so long as you're not exposing kids to whatever you're doing or engaging in dangerous behaviors like drinking and driving as a consequence.

I wish the average "conservative" in the public eye was as practical. Generally, they are not, thus the "Christian" theological approach to legislation rather than a more libertarian/personal freedom approach.

 

[degsy]

2022; *points at any woman in the street - I control your body, not you.
1822; *points at any slave in a field - I control your body, not you.

Can't see much difference myself, or have I missed something.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

I was an unwanted pregnancy for him.

Are you Fernando Partridge?

 

[BlueTX]

2022; *points at any woman in the street - I control your body, not you.
1822; *points at any slave in a field - I control your body, not you.

Can't see much difference myself, or have I missed something.

Well, there's the literal ownership thing.

 

[degsy]

Well, there's the literal ownership thing.

Well yeah there is that, but fast forwards 200years and the whole deal hasn't got that much better.
You own somebody, you control their body
You control their body, you virtually (in the old analogue sense) own them.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

There are ways to solve the secondhand smoke problem. They cost money, which is why we don't implement them. IMO, the only reason that your average liberal in the public eye doesn't express a preference for banning smoking outright is because they're smart enough to know it isn't feasible under present political conditions. They lie about their sincere preferences because they know it's counter-productive to express them.


I wholeheartedly agree that we're not headed for a more libertarian social agenda any time soon. All I'm getting at is that if we took a more libertarian approach to social policy while ignoring what the libertarians have to say about economic issues (because Samuelson proved them dead wrong, with math, about seventy-five years ago), we probably would have a lot less conflict in this country.

To put that another way - I can prove to you that we need strong, independent government agencies that are not corrupt. I can prove that the market isn't going to solve the problems agencies like the FDA, EPA, SEC and state insurance regulators exist to solve, and that collectively we are harmed at the expense of a few if they fail at those jobs. It is impossible to prove that you shouldn't be doing whatever it is you prefer to do with your body, so long as you're not exposing kids to whatever you're doing or engaging in dangerous behaviors like drinking and driving as a consequence.

Dude that’s insanity

I’ve never heard any politician, or anyone ever, talk about banning smoking. It’s always about making sure secondhand smoke doesn’t infringe on others.

JFC

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Dude that’s insanity

I’ve never heard any politician, or anyone ever, talk about banning smoking. It’s always about making sure secondhand smoke doesn’t infringe on others.

JFC

Oh but you don’t get it, they all WANT to ban smoking, they just don’t say it out loud.

Apparently.

 

[Martin Alvito]

To be honest, if you remove people's right to bodily autonomy, you should go to war for that.

The judges who made this decision, need to face consequences for their actions. We all know what those consequences should be as well.

No, the proper response is to go to the polls and vote for people that will protect the integrity of our elections, defend our rights, and impeach -> remove those justices on human rights grounds, so that we don't have to resort to violence.

The reason we're having this conversation is because there aren't enough people who will. There's a whole host of reasons why. If you want my opinion, the single biggest problem is that a lot of people don't trust the Democrats, given a free hand, not to implement policies they like even less than the status quo. The Democrats need a big rethink on their approach to social policy. They're stuck thinking about issues in the context of gains for the various interest groups whose coalition comprises their base, which is not the same as working towards the goal of equal justice under the law.

The second-biggest problem is that the Republicans work like crazy to suppress the vote of people they know are unlikely to vote for them. That's culminating in a push by Republicans to elect secretaries of state that are dog-whistling their willingness to certify false election results, if you ask me.

Frankly Martin I am in an absolutely foul mood so tbh all that just seems like idealized philosophical handwaving to me that does absolutely zilch to address any of the very real problems that people are about to face in practice, sorry.

The Republicans have been winning for some time, in terms of policy outputs, because they won the ideological war. They hammered together a coalition of three basic interests - big business, the religious right and the gun nuts - and worked tirelessly and relentlessly to convince people that government can't solve problems in order to dismantle it. Meanwhile, they got the religious right, many of whom are not well off and have become worse off under Republican policies, to support them by promising to implement their social agenda. They convinced people that guns make them safer, rather than making them feel more safe, and promised to let them carry those guns wherever they want. The Republicans are now delivering on those promises.

You don't solve this by being angry about what has happened. You solve it by chipping away at their coalition. That means putting something on the table that's attractive to people in the states you need to win - and make no mistake about it, you probably need to hold at least one of the presidency or the Senate continuously for the next fifteen years if you want to replace Thomas or Alito with someone less loathsome.

It's time for some soul-searching about how to put something on the table that accomplishes that objective, and some recognition that letting the Trumpites have control of the secretary of state's offices is going to preclude that. The alternative is violence, but your opponents broadly have the loyalty of the military, the police and the gun nuts. That's not likely to work out well.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

No, the proper response is to go to the polls and vote for people that will protect the integrity of our elections, defend our rights, and impeach -> remove those justices on human rights grounds, so that we don't have to resort to violence.

The reason we're having this conversation is because there aren't enough people who will. There's a whole host of reasons why. If you want my opinion, the single biggest problem is that a lot of people don't trust the Democrats, given a free hand, not to implement policies they like even less than the status quo. The Democrats need a big rethink on their approach to social policy. They're stuck thinking about issues in the context of gains for the various interest groups whose coalition comprises their base, which is not the same as working towards the goal of equal justice under the law.

The second-biggest problem is that the Republicans work like crazy to suppress the vote of people they know are unlikely to vote for them. That's culminating in a push by Republicans to elect secretaries of state that are dog-whistling their willingness to certify false election results, if you ask me.


The Republicans have been winning for some time, in terms of policy outputs, because they won the ideological war. They hammered together a coalition of three basic interests - big business, the religious right and the gun nuts - and worked tirelessly and relentlessly to convince people that government can't solve problems in order to dismantle it. Meanwhile, they got the religious right, many of whom are not well off and have become worse off under Republican policies, to support them by promising to implement their social agenda. They convinced people that guns make them safer, rather than making them feel more safe, and promised to let them carry those guns wherever they want. The Republicans are now delivering on those promises.

You don't solve this by being angry about what has happened. You solve it by chipping away at their coalition. That means putting something on the table that's attractive to people in the states you need to win - and make no mistake about it, you probably need to hold at least one of the presidency or the Senate continuously for the next fifteen years if you want to replace Thomas or Alito with someone less loathsome.

It's time for some soul-searching about how to put something on the table that accomplishes that objective, and some recognition that letting the Trumpites have control of the secretary of state's offices is going to preclude that. The alternative is violence, but your opponents broadly have the loyalty of the military, the police and the gun nuts. That's not likely to work out well.

Can't we just agree that women have a human right to choose what to do with their body like in a civilised country?

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

No, the proper response is to go to the polls and vote for people that will protect the integrity of our elections, defend our rights, and impeach -> remove those justices on human rights grounds, so that we don't have to resort to violence.

The reason we're having this conversation is because there aren't enough people who will. There's a whole host of reasons why. If you want my opinion, the single biggest problem is that a lot of people don't trust the Democrats, given a free hand, not to implement policies they like even less than the status quo. The Democrats need a big rethink on their approach to social policy. They're stuck thinking about issues in the context of gains for the various interest groups whose coalition comprises their base, which is not the same as working towards the goal of equal justice under the law.

The second-biggest problem is that the Republicans work like crazy to suppress the vote of people they know are unlikely to vote for them. That's culminating in a push by Republicans to elect secretaries of state that are dog-whistling their willingness to certify false election results, if you ask me.


The Republicans have been winning for some time, in terms of policy outputs, because they won the ideological war. They hammered together a coalition of three basic interests - big business, the religious right and the gun nuts - and worked tirelessly and relentlessly to convince people that government can't solve problems in order to dismantle it. Meanwhile, they got the religious right, many of whom are not well off and have become worse off under Republican policies, to support them by promising to implement their social agenda. They convinced people that guns make them safer, rather than making them feel more safe, and promised to let them carry those guns wherever they want. The Republicans are now delivering on those promises.

You don't solve this by being angry about what has happened. You solve it by chipping away at their coalition. That means putting something on the table that's attractive to people in the states you need to win - and make no mistake about it, you probably need to hold at least one of the presidency or the Senate continuously for the next fifteen years if you want to replace Thomas or Alito with someone less loathsome.

It's time for some soul-searching about how to put something on the table that accomplishes that objective, and some recognition that letting the Trumpites have control of the secretary of state's offices is going to preclude that. The alternative is violence, but your opponents broadly have the loyalty of the military, the police and the gun nuts. That's not likely to work out well.

Arguments like this are tiresome

The reality is that democrats have won the popular vote for decades. Their policies are to try to actually do good thjngs for people, hence why they are more popular in general

Republicans, aided by our electrical college, gerrymandering, and the rise of Rush and Fox News, have successfully created an us vs them alternate reality for your commoner that are taken advantage of by super rich Republicans that only want to save money on taxes and ensure they don’t have to deal with black and brown people

Harsh. But true. As someone who comes from a family on the white trash side of the party in the 80s and 90s, this is literally how it is

 

[Martin Alvito]

Dude that’s insanity

I’ve never heard any politician, or anyone ever, talk about banning smoking. It’s always about making sure secondhand smoke doesn’t infringe on others.

JFC

Look, if the usage rate were 2% rather than one-sixth of the population, that's what would happen. We criminalize everything else with those usage rates that is generally perceived the way smoking is. The reason that marijuana got decriminalized is because usage rates went way up. The reason Prohibition collapsed is that FDR, and others, recognized that enough people were circumventing the law that the consequences of that were doing more harm than good.

If you talk to the left's core voters, they generally would prefer it banned. The politicians don't stake out that position because alienating one-sixth of the population to the point that they will vote for anyone else who will reverse your policy is not a winning electoral strategy.