lwien
Well-Known Member
"Same as it ever was...."
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
"Same as it ever was...."
grokit
well-worn member
What critics get wrong about Bernie Sanders supporters
Sanders' policies aren't about giving stuff away for free, they're about keeping up with an evolving world economy
It is no secret that Sen. Bernie Sanders has dominated with millennial voters over the past year, winning as much as 80 percent of the under-30 vote in some states against his Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. All told, the senator has received more votes from under-30 Americans than the two presumptive nominees combined (by nearly 30 percent), according to a recent report from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. While an estimated 766,425 under-30 Americans cast their ballots for Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, over two million backed Sanders (while presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump received roughly 800,000 votes from under-30s, slightly more than Clinton).
Commentators have drawn different conclusions from Sanders’ remarkable popularity among millennials, but the two most common takeaways are either that the democratic socialist’s politics are the future of the Democratic party (and thus American politics), or that the entire movement is youthful idealism that will fizzle out once the election comes to an end (and thus Clinton neoliberalism will remain the dominant ideology).
It has been hard to miss the condescending attitude towards millennial Sanders supporters, who, according to many pundits, are either lazy slackers who want “free stuff,” or are hopelessly naive and don’t understand how the real world works — e.g. that money makes the world go round and that taking a “purist” stand against special interests and corruption (in both parties) will only help the GOP fascist Donald Trump. In other words, young people haven’t come to terms with the reality of “lesser-evilism.”
Even pundits who are sympathetic to Sanders have not been impervious to ageism against the youngest generation. Consider HBO host Bill Maher, who was an early supporter of Sanders. Two weeks ago the comedian went on an anti-millennial rant during his New Rules segment, and while he conceded that Sanders had won the future, he also coined his very own neologism — “Santa-ism” — to mock young Americans who support policies like universal healthcare and free public college tuition (policies that can already be found in other industrialized countries).
“Let’s not romanticize socialism the way conservatives romanticize capitalism,” said Maher. “These are economic systems, not your first kiss…[Millennials have] gotten too used to getting shit for free” (Maher then goes on to list two invaluable commodities that have been largely demonetized by the internet: music and pornography).
It seems that even sympathetic voices have bought into the free stuff straw man commonly touted in right-wing circles; an argument that is equivalent to the conservative “poor people are lazy” talking point. Maher complains that young people are still living at their parents and are still on their parents healthcare plans — as if millennials want to be completely dependent on their parents and are too entitled to go out and do something with their lives.
In reality, millennials are the most educated generation and the most indebted generation (surprise: the class of 2016 recently surpassed the class of 2015 as the most indebted ever — though this record will undoubtedly be short-lived). They also face a bleak job market, while average wages have steadily declined for young graduates since 2000. When Maher went to Cornell in the late seventies, public college tuition was on average less than a quarter of what it is today in inflation-adjusted dollars, and economic inequality was at an all-time low (today, it is at historic highs). So while students continue to see tuition skyrocket, they also see wages stagnating and an increasing likelihood that middle-class jobs will be automated in the near future.
For young people who choose not to go to college and avoid taking on enormous levels of debt, there is an increasingly widening pay gap. “In 2013 median earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s degree were $48,500, compared with $23,900 for those without a high school credential, $30,000 for those with a high school credential, and $37,500 for those with an associate’s degree,” according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. If one forgoes a college education in America today, the prospects of making it into the middle class decrease markedly (other countries, like Germany, have excellent vocational school systems that America could learn a lot from).
Even more troubling is the fact that technology may soon begin eliminating more jobs than it creates (according to some researchers, we have already reached a tipping point). Throughout the history of capitalism, “creative destruction,” described by economist Joseph Schumpter as a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one,” has always produced a net positive for society. While old jobs became obsolete, technology created new and better ones and the whole of society became more wealthy and better-off in the process.
But with advancements in computer technology and robotics this may no longer be the case. According to a 2013 Oxford University study, about 47 percent of jobs in America are at risk for computerization in the next two decades, and new technology simply isn’t keeping up with job creation. Without stable and decent paying jobs, those who do not own capital (i.e. the majority of American wage-earners) face an arduous future without policies that promote economic democratization or provide a basic standard of living (i.e. a universal basic income).
This is obviously bad news for the youngest generation, and also a good reason for millennials to support social democracy. True, some young voters may support Sanders simply for his integrity or authenticity, which are both rare qualities in modern politicians. But is it unreasonable to conclude that young voters primarily back the democratic socialist because neoliberalism isn’t delivering and Sanders is offering an alternative? Millenials grew up in a post-Communist neoliberal world, and income and wealth inequality have steadily accelerated throughout their lives while the global economy has been more volatile than any other period since the Great Depression.
If America doesn’t embrace social democratic policies, working and young people will continue to see their economic circumstances decline, while the top five percent — capitalists and those in the professional class (although even white-collar professionals are not safe from creative destruction) — will see their already obscene wealth continue to soar, particularly those in the top 0.1 percent.
What critics like Bill Maher (and virtually every pundit on Fox News) call “free stuff” are simply policies that would address the major economic challenges of our time. The rugged individualism that conservatives love to espouse and romanticize is not applicable to the 21st century economy, where massive multi-national corporations control entire sectors and the majority of people work for a wage or salary. Social democracy addresses the shortfalls and excesses of modern capitalism.
Policies like tuition-free public college, universal healthcare, and a universal basic income (which is, unfortunately, not included in Sanders’ platform) are not about giving everything away for free, but keeping up with a rapidly evolving economy and guaranteeing a basic standard of living in the world’s richest country. It seems millennials who have inherited the disastrous neoliberal economy and the corrupt corporate state from their parents and grandparents have very good reason to support a democratic socialist.
http://media.salon.com/2016/06/bernie_sanders_supporters4.jpg
Sanders' policies aren't about giving stuff away for free, they're about keeping up with an evolving world economy
It is no secret that Sen. Bernie Sanders has dominated with millennial voters over the past year, winning as much as 80 percent of the under-30 vote in some states against his Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Clinton. All told, the senator has received more votes from under-30 Americans than the two presumptive nominees combined (by nearly 30 percent), according to a recent report from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. While an estimated 766,425 under-30 Americans cast their ballots for Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, over two million backed Sanders (while presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump received roughly 800,000 votes from under-30s, slightly more than Clinton).
Commentators have drawn different conclusions from Sanders’ remarkable popularity among millennials, but the two most common takeaways are either that the democratic socialist’s politics are the future of the Democratic party (and thus American politics), or that the entire movement is youthful idealism that will fizzle out once the election comes to an end (and thus Clinton neoliberalism will remain the dominant ideology).
It has been hard to miss the condescending attitude towards millennial Sanders supporters, who, according to many pundits, are either lazy slackers who want “free stuff,” or are hopelessly naive and don’t understand how the real world works — e.g. that money makes the world go round and that taking a “purist” stand against special interests and corruption (in both parties) will only help the GOP fascist Donald Trump. In other words, young people haven’t come to terms with the reality of “lesser-evilism.”
Even pundits who are sympathetic to Sanders have not been impervious to ageism against the youngest generation. Consider HBO host Bill Maher, who was an early supporter of Sanders. Two weeks ago the comedian went on an anti-millennial rant during his New Rules segment, and while he conceded that Sanders had won the future, he also coined his very own neologism — “Santa-ism” — to mock young Americans who support policies like universal healthcare and free public college tuition (policies that can already be found in other industrialized countries).
“Let’s not romanticize socialism the way conservatives romanticize capitalism,” said Maher. “These are economic systems, not your first kiss…[Millennials have] gotten too used to getting shit for free” (Maher then goes on to list two invaluable commodities that have been largely demonetized by the internet: music and pornography).
It seems that even sympathetic voices have bought into the free stuff straw man commonly touted in right-wing circles; an argument that is equivalent to the conservative “poor people are lazy” talking point. Maher complains that young people are still living at their parents and are still on their parents healthcare plans — as if millennials want to be completely dependent on their parents and are too entitled to go out and do something with their lives.
In reality, millennials are the most educated generation and the most indebted generation (surprise: the class of 2016 recently surpassed the class of 2015 as the most indebted ever — though this record will undoubtedly be short-lived). They also face a bleak job market, while average wages have steadily declined for young graduates since 2000. When Maher went to Cornell in the late seventies, public college tuition was on average less than a quarter of what it is today in inflation-adjusted dollars, and economic inequality was at an all-time low (today, it is at historic highs). So while students continue to see tuition skyrocket, they also see wages stagnating and an increasing likelihood that middle-class jobs will be automated in the near future.
For young people who choose not to go to college and avoid taking on enormous levels of debt, there is an increasingly widening pay gap. “In 2013 median earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s degree were $48,500, compared with $23,900 for those without a high school credential, $30,000 for those with a high school credential, and $37,500 for those with an associate’s degree,” according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. If one forgoes a college education in America today, the prospects of making it into the middle class decrease markedly (other countries, like Germany, have excellent vocational school systems that America could learn a lot from).
Even more troubling is the fact that technology may soon begin eliminating more jobs than it creates (according to some researchers, we have already reached a tipping point). Throughout the history of capitalism, “creative destruction,” described by economist Joseph Schumpter as a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one,” has always produced a net positive for society. While old jobs became obsolete, technology created new and better ones and the whole of society became more wealthy and better-off in the process.
But with advancements in computer technology and robotics this may no longer be the case. According to a 2013 Oxford University study, about 47 percent of jobs in America are at risk for computerization in the next two decades, and new technology simply isn’t keeping up with job creation. Without stable and decent paying jobs, those who do not own capital (i.e. the majority of American wage-earners) face an arduous future without policies that promote economic democratization or provide a basic standard of living (i.e. a universal basic income).
This is obviously bad news for the youngest generation, and also a good reason for millennials to support social democracy. True, some young voters may support Sanders simply for his integrity or authenticity, which are both rare qualities in modern politicians. But is it unreasonable to conclude that young voters primarily back the democratic socialist because neoliberalism isn’t delivering and Sanders is offering an alternative? Millenials grew up in a post-Communist neoliberal world, and income and wealth inequality have steadily accelerated throughout their lives while the global economy has been more volatile than any other period since the Great Depression.
If America doesn’t embrace social democratic policies, working and young people will continue to see their economic circumstances decline, while the top five percent — capitalists and those in the professional class (although even white-collar professionals are not safe from creative destruction) — will see their already obscene wealth continue to soar, particularly those in the top 0.1 percent.
What critics like Bill Maher (and virtually every pundit on Fox News) call “free stuff” are simply policies that would address the major economic challenges of our time. The rugged individualism that conservatives love to espouse and romanticize is not applicable to the 21st century economy, where massive multi-national corporations control entire sectors and the majority of people work for a wage or salary. Social democracy addresses the shortfalls and excesses of modern capitalism.
Policies like tuition-free public college, universal healthcare, and a universal basic income (which is, unfortunately, not included in Sanders’ platform) are not about giving everything away for free, but keeping up with a rapidly evolving economy and guaranteeing a basic standard of living in the world’s richest country. It seems millennials who have inherited the disastrous neoliberal economy and the corrupt corporate state from their parents and grandparents have very good reason to support a democratic socialist.
http://media.salon.com/2016/06/bernie_sanders_supporters4.jpg
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I didn't experience any issues at all. Florida has a write in option (absentee voting where you don't have to be absent) and early voting too.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I don't 100% agree with this picture, but the post above reminded me of this meme I saw a while back. There are definitely MANY situations like this across the country, and it really does shock me that no one seems to notice and/or actually hold them accountable.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I would love for you to ask friends of mine who lived in the USSR and its satellites (Romania, Ukraine, and Czech are the three I spoke with last about this) what the dumbed down version of socialism was, because this would be their exact response.
The capitalistic system we have now is not even capitalist. We have an impossibly complex fascist-marxist capitalistic system, as we allow companies to write legislation in their own industries, politicians are bought and paid for, and we allow to government to interfere in the free market system as opposed to letting consumers decide where they want the winners to be, while at the same time the government con co-opt land almost whenever it wishes, change the rules whenever it wants, and in times like these where legislation is based on emotion rather than facts, make it almost impossible for a company to invest when it doesn't know whether it will randomly cost 50% more to be open next month.
We can yell all we want about change, but I have yet to see the government actually come through on any promise to fix anything (the War on Poverty would be my biggest example here, but then there's social security, Medicare, I could go on), so I don't see how giving the government more power over businesses and our financial situation would help solve anything.
Until we cut the fat, apply efficiency principles to our spending policies (specifically removing redundancies, completely overlapping government agencies, multiple middle-management structures, etc.) and actually efficiently spend the money already being brought in, then I would happily vote for a more socially constructive situation. Mostly because we wouldn't need to increase taxes, just stop paying 6 different people $50k a year with lifetime health insurance to do the same job with miserable results. It's the same reason I don't give to charities when only $0.05 on the dollar actually goes to the charitable aspect of the organisation, but I don't have that option when it comes to taxes.
However, I also personally believe people should take care of people, and not the government forcing people to do so. I think its dehumanizing and definitely NOT charity when forced redistribution of wealth occurs, whether you are on the giving or receiving end. Giving someone another persons money doesn't actually solve a problem if there is no expected result.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
Capitalism is inherently unfair, and only serves to exploit the world's resources until there is nothing left for anyone. For example someday all of the lumberjacks in the world will be surrounding the last tree left standing, and instead of finding a solution they will fight to the death for the right to kill that tree.
I heartily agree that democratic socialism is the only way to preserve both democracy and society. I worry that both of these institutions will suffer if they aren't implemented sooner than later. I also think that these two institutions are inevitable and even vital if we are to survive our future, in spite of ourselves.
I heartily agree that democratic socialism is the only way to preserve both democracy and society. I worry that both of these institutions will suffer if they aren't implemented sooner than later. I also think that these two institutions are inevitable and even vital if we are to survive our future, in spite of ourselves.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
What you've described is greed, not capitalism. True capitalism involves proper allocation of resources, long term planning, maximizing strengths, bartering to compensate for weaknesses. Read "Wealth of Nations." It's entirely different from the current approach.
grokit
well-worn member
Correct. But this is the myth that we live under, which unfortunately is the opposite of free markets deciding the course of the economy. Instead we have subsidized rackets preying on everything they can devour.
grokit
well-worn member
Here's some "capitalism" for ya, in the form of international trade agreements. NAFTA was signed by bill clinton and has brought us the following; now hillary wants to seal our fate with the upcoming TPP.
TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection
TransCanada recently filed a lawsuit against the United States because of the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.
On June 24, foreign oil company TransCanada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline violated NAFTA’s broad rights for foreign investors by thwarting the company’s “expectations.” As compensation, TransCanada is demanding more than $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers.
TransCanada’s case will be heard in a private tribunal of three lawyers who are not accountable to any domestic legal system, thanks to NAFTA’s “investor-state” system, which is also included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The controversial TPP would empower thousands of additional corporations, including major polluters, to follow TransCanada’s example and use this private tribunal system to challenge U.S. climate and environmental policies.
TransCanada’s Request for Arbitration follows the Notice of Intent to submit a claim to arbitration that it filed on Jan. 6.
TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks.
The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, spotlighting the need for a new model of trade model that supports rather than undermines climate action. We urge our members of Congress to learn from this historic moment and commit to reject the TPP.
Here’s more information on the TPP:
TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection
TransCanada recently filed a lawsuit against the United States because of the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.
On June 24, foreign oil company TransCanada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline violated NAFTA’s broad rights for foreign investors by thwarting the company’s “expectations.” As compensation, TransCanada is demanding more than $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers.
TransCanada’s case will be heard in a private tribunal of three lawyers who are not accountable to any domestic legal system, thanks to NAFTA’s “investor-state” system, which is also included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The controversial TPP would empower thousands of additional corporations, including major polluters, to follow TransCanada’s example and use this private tribunal system to challenge U.S. climate and environmental policies.
TransCanada’s Request for Arbitration follows the Notice of Intent to submit a claim to arbitration that it filed on Jan. 6.
Oil company led climate denial, now helping make trade rules in #TPP and #TTIP @sierraclub https://t.co/magVbS7Lfr pic.twitter.com/y7beC5lbUG
— Expose The TPP (@ExposeTPP) June 7, 2016
TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks.
The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, spotlighting the need for a new model of trade model that supports rather than undermines climate action. We urge our members of Congress to learn from this historic moment and commit to reject the TPP.
Here’s more information on the TPP:
- Environmental opposition to the TPP is mounting. Earlier in June, more than 450 environmental, landowner, Indigenous rights, and allied organizations sent a letter to Congress warning that pending trade deals like the TPP threaten efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
- Read the Sierra Club’s report on how the TPP would roughly double the number of corporations that could follow TransCanada’s example and challenge U.S. safeguards in private, unaccountable tribunals.
- The corporations that would gain this ability include hundreds of foreign-owned fossil fuel firms, such as the U.S. subsidiaries of BHP Billiton, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and one of the U.S.’s largest foreign investors in fracking and offshore drilling.
- The TPP would nearly double the number of foreign fracking firms that could challenge new U.S. fracking restrictions in private tribunals.
- The deal also would enable oil and gas corporations with nearly 1 million acres’ worth of U.S. offshore drilling leases to use this private tribunal system to try to undermine new restrictions on offshore drilling.
- No prior U.S. trade deal has granted such broad rights to corporations with such broad interests in maintaining U.S. fossil fuel dependency.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Good luck with that lawsuit, TC. Can't wait until the betting markets have it...
Fuck the betting markets. I'm gonna sue Canada for a Gazillion dollars (USD) for not letting me build an island out in front of the Port of Montreal where I want to set up a few Vegas style brothels and carnival midways.
How bout MY "expectations"...
I would estimate my chance of success to be similar to theirs.
Fuck the betting markets. I'm gonna sue Canada for a Gazillion dollars (USD) for not letting me build an island out in front of the Port of Montreal where I want to set up a few Vegas style brothels and carnival midways.
How bout MY "expectations"...
I would estimate my chance of success to be similar to theirs.
Last edited:
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
I hear ya, man, but when you've gritted your teeth HARD thru a few generations of this BS, 'anger' is putting it too mildly
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
Before the Bullfighter kills the Bull, he first makes him angry. Don't waste time steaming. Look for answers.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
George Will: Trump's judge comments prompted exit from GOP
Megyn Kelly confronts Trump on his 'bimbo' tweets
Obama: Donald Trump's record needs to be scrutinized
Trump to continue 'free media' strategy?
Conservative media's deep divide over Trump
Michelle Fields says Trump defamed her
Washington (CNN)George Will, the conservative commentator and columnist, said Sunday that he changed his voter registration to "unaffiliated" 23 days ago and has left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump.
"After Trump went after the 'Mexican' judge from northern Indiana then (House Speaker) Paul Ryan endorsed him, I decided that in fact this was not my party anymore," Will said on "Fox News Sunday."
Trump attacked Will on Twitter over his decision to leave the GOP Sunday morning, writing: "George Will, one of the most overrated political pundits (who lost his way long ago), has left the Republican Party. He's made many bad calls."
Will responded on "Fox News Sunday," saying: "He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can't."
He said he'd joined the Republican Party in 1964, inspired by Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a founder of the conservative movement and a key figure in the party then.
Megyn Kelly confronts Trump on his 'bimbo' tweets
Obama: Donald Trump's record needs to be scrutinized
Trump to continue 'free media' strategy?
Conservative media's deep divide over Trump
Michelle Fields says Trump defamed her
Washington (CNN)George Will, the conservative commentator and columnist, said Sunday that he changed his voter registration to "unaffiliated" 23 days ago and has left the Republican Party because of Donald Trump.
"After Trump went after the 'Mexican' judge from northern Indiana then (House Speaker) Paul Ryan endorsed him, I decided that in fact this was not my party anymore," Will said on "Fox News Sunday."
Trump attacked Will on Twitter over his decision to leave the GOP Sunday morning, writing: "George Will, one of the most overrated political pundits (who lost his way long ago), has left the Republican Party. He's made many bad calls."
Will responded on "Fox News Sunday," saying: "He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can't."
He said he'd joined the Republican Party in 1964, inspired by Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a founder of the conservative movement and a key figure in the party then.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Never been a fan, but I love this line.
Maitri
Deadhead, Low-Temp Dabber, Mahayana Buddhist
Heh, I saw that line and was immediately inspired to quote it. Then I noticed that you conveyed my sentiment beautifully. Thank you.
Maitri
Deadhead, Low-Temp Dabber, Mahayana Buddhist
Heh, you were able to convey that sentiment in only 102 characters. Well played, my friend.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
This is another reason why Trump shouldnt be president. The republicans want abortions to be illegal. Thank goodness the Texas law was struck down. Many other republican states want to make abortions illegal.
Rep are hoping that they can put in place members to the Supreme Court to get rid of abortions. There are some rep that don't believe in that. Abortion is an issue for women but men too. Usually it's the guy that pays for the abortion and the egg mcmuffin afterwards. Usually it's both partners that decide that a baby isn't right for them right now.
So voting for a third party candidate instead of the demos choice only makes things better for Trump. It's your vote do as you see fit. My vote just cancels out my husband's. I would never throw his ballot in the mail instead of mailing it.
My conscious would get to me. I've thought about it though. Especially when hubby voted a second time for George W. Bush.
CK
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down.
The decision was 5-3.
Read the decision
Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.
The Center for Reproductive Rights called the law "an absolute sham," arguing that abortion patients rarely require hospitalization and that many patients simply take two pills.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said "neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."
Related: Shuttered the End of Abortion Access in Red America
Rep are hoping that they can put in place members to the Supreme Court to get rid of abortions. There are some rep that don't believe in that. Abortion is an issue for women but men too. Usually it's the guy that pays for the abortion and the egg mcmuffin afterwards. Usually it's both partners that decide that a baby isn't right for them right now.
So voting for a third party candidate instead of the demos choice only makes things better for Trump. It's your vote do as you see fit. My vote just cancels out my husband's. I would never throw his ballot in the mail instead of mailing it.
My conscious would get to me. I've thought about it though. Especially when hubby voted a second time for George W. Bush.CK
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down.
The decision was 5-3.
Read the decision
Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.
The Center for Reproductive Rights called the law "an absolute sham," arguing that abortion patients rarely require hospitalization and that many patients simply take two pills.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said "neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."
Related: Shuttered the End of Abortion Access in Red America
Last edited:
thisperson
Ruler of all things person
Think about it for a minute. The party claiming to value deregulation imposed the most stringent of regulations on small time health centers just to snuff them out of business.
I saw a video about a man who spent his life savings to get his abortion clinic up to code but they still wanted to shut him down with some newer thing about being close to schools or something like that. Details are foggy, but his life savings down the drain thanks to those regulations.
I feel for that man.
I saw a video about a man who spent his life savings to get his abortion clinic up to code but they still wanted to shut him down with some newer thing about being close to schools or something like that. Details are foggy, but his life savings down the drain thanks to those regulations.
I feel for that man.
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
She took advantage of diversity hiring/ affirmative action which is more cut and dry and almost for the integrity of the tribe should be confirmed. This would render her a burn the bridge after you cross it, limousine liberal.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
She did what I would do. Find and use any loophole possible to make the best out of my money. I do it all the time with my taxes, small investments, etc.
If I was 1/64 Cherokee I would run with it and get as much free as possible. Unfortunately for me the bulk of my ancestry are white alcoholics, so no federal funding. My wife is 1/32 Iroquois, so maybe my kids will get free college too.
If I was 1/64 Cherokee I would run with it and get as much free as possible. Unfortunately for me the bulk of my ancestry are white alcoholics, so no federal funding. My wife is 1/32 Iroquois, so maybe my kids will get free college too.