Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Moves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 8 in General
imageMoves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com

By far the biggest political development in the United States in the last few days has been the leak of an opinion by one of the justices of the Supreme Court which looks as though US abortion lights laid down more than half a century ago in the case of Roe v Wade could be limited.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,187
    Test
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    edited May 5
    Second.
    Agree. This could be a driver of turnout.
    It always has been of course. But it may drive it in the opposite direction to usual.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,144
    Third!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,526
    edited May 5
    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,536
    Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    It will help the Democrats in blue and purple states but the GOP in deep Red states.

    Realistically the latter are the only ones which would see serious abortion restrictions even if Roe v Wade was overturned
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    edited May 5

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.

    The legal and philosophical position is that an unborn child is a life in being, which has rights, even if not the full rights of an adult. In the same way, a living child does not possess full adult rights.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,799
    Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

    https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,719

    Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed

    Oh the horror!!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    @stocky That post gave me palpitations. I don't know about your house, but there would have been a lot of shouting and panicking in ours. And then afterwards, regardless of the outcome, we would have thought that it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things.

    Congratulations to your daughter.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,962

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if its revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    I tend to agree. Your point about the elections being six months away is a key one, I think.

    There's also a risk that the Dems obsess about this to the exclusion of other issues, but those for whom it's a big motivator are probably going to vote Dem (or GOP, on the other side of the argument) anyway.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,197
    I see the centrist pundits in America have already gotten on to "Sure they are going to outlaw abortion but it is hysterical over reaction to say they will overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence/etc..."

    They are truly shameless.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,536
    ping said:

    Interest rates should be ~5%, given where inflation is right now, imo.

    BoE failing their most basic duty.

    As a minimum!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,197

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748

    Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed

    Real as opposed to nominal interest rate is around -9% then!!!

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 22,658
    @BartholomewRoberts - just to be clear, because I'm struggling to follow your reasoning, what do you think the law on abortion should be?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    edited May 5

    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
    Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

    Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.

    Neither viewpoint is irrational.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
    Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

    Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
    Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.

    No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.

    tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.

    Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,579

    Interest rate rise 0.25% to 1.00% confirmed

    Oh the horror!!
    Not for us oldies who have paid off the mortgage, but those not on fixed rate mortgages are likely to see substantial repayment hikes over the next few months.

    Fortunately we mortgage-paid oldies all vote Tory so no harm done.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,507
    Andy_JS said:

    Local elections spreadsheet includes a full list of the 21,000 candidates standing for election today.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p_DZ1ltk9XStlEQHy-V3SaLCOWU_6j17jZ8sMvgRl4/edit#gid=590771643

    When you put it like that - that's a remarkable amount of participation. About 1 in 3,000 people are standing for office today!
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,507
    edited May 5

    I hope it will help the Democrats. It is yet another reason why the Republican party as it stands is unfit for office or even existence.

    It's also extraordinary to see the spread across Republicans - it is not the wedge issue it seems to be. As so-often, a batshit noisy minority (at either end) generate the conflict, and the press hype it up because it generates clicks.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,579

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Putin's Russia is the model. The USA becomes a nominally democratic autocracy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849

    I hope it will help the Democrats. It is yet another reason why the Republican party as it stands is unfit for office or even existence.

    Having thought about this, I don't think there is any policy position so extreme that it would damage the Republicans, except at the margins. "Owning the libtards" is the priority.

    Ten years ago, their candidates could lose important Senate races by talking about "legitimate rape" etc. I don't think that would happen now.

    Mississippi could execute women who seek abortions, and Alabama could reintroduce anti-miscegenation laws, and the Republicans would still win Statewide.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,576
    HYUFD said:

    Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

    https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

    But has he ever voted Plaid Cymru?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    edited May 5

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Most people can't see a way how he can possibly get around term limits. And he's already 75.

    (Edit: seems appropriate that my 1776th post is on US politics!)
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,391

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if its revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    I tend to agree. Your point about the elections being six months away is a key one, I think.

    There's also a risk that the Dems obsess about this to the exclusion of other issues, but those for whom it's a big motivator are probably going to vote Dem (or GOP, on the other side of the argument) anyway.

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if its revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    I tend to agree. Your point about the elections being six months away is a key one, I think.

    There's also a risk that the Dems obsess about this to the exclusion of other issues, but those for whom it's a big motivator are probably going to vote Dem (or GOP, on the other side of the argument) anyway.
    Yes, I agree too.

    The American electorate seems remarkably relaxed about Trump's assault on democracy in the country so I am not sure a change in abortion laws is going to disturb it that much.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 552
    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,391

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,198



    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is quite amazing how people are in denial over this. It's going to happen.
  • pingping Posts: 2,143
    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Yep. It’s a bloody awful time to be in government.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    Dura_Ace said:



    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is quite amazing how people are in denial over this. It's going to happen.
    How?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    HYUFD said:

    Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

    https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

    Anyone who prefers a Conservative government to a Labour one should NOT vote Conservative (aka CINO) today.

    If the Tories do not do extremely badly there is a greater chance of the car crash known as Boris Johnson continue his disastrous premiership through to the GE which will lead to Labour being in power for a generation.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,533
    Dura_Ace said:



    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is quite amazing how people are in denial over this. It's going to happen.
    You are presenting your hyperbolic "look at me" opinion as fact again.

    Just as you did in 2020, when you were wrong.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
  • pingping Posts: 2,143
    Three of the nine MPC members voted for a half-point rate increase.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    Applicant said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is quite amazing how people are in denial over this. It's going to happen.
    How?
    He knows not. It is a guess.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466
    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    And then been arrested and jailed/executed by the legitimate authorities.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 552

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582
    FPT - I was going to apologise for carrying over the abortion debate onto the new thread… but to my shame realised it was on topic

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I suspect if you proposed an abortion one minute before birth most people would resile from that concept.
    Including pregnant women, so its a moot point.

    How many pregnant women do you think are begging for an abortion one minute before birth?

    Why is this even an issue, or is it just a straw windmill to tilt?

    I will put my faith in women that they're not likely to do that and in the extremely unlikely event that they did they must have extremely good reasons and its none of my business.
    So you position is let’s make this legal because no one will do it?

    The unborn child has no rights because all women are sensible and even if, 1 minute before birth, they did elect for an abortion “they must have had good reasons” so it’s ok.

    One of the legitimate roles of the state is to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. This is a good example of that.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,579

    HYUFD said:

    Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

    https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

    Anyone who prefers a Conservative government to a Labour one should NOT vote Conservative (aka CINO) today.

    If the Tories do not do extremely badly there is a greater chance of the car crash known as Boris Johnson continue his disastrous premiership through to the GE which will lead to Labour being in power for a generation.
    Having seen their work recently I think Johnson's team of Australian subversives can see a Johnson led Conservative Party comfortably win the next GE. They are very good at what they do, so no panic, no incoming Labour Government anytime soon.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Viability - which is the basis of the UK system (albeit 1990 medicine) is entirely intellectually consistent
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
    No GE in 2023 that is for sure.

    Maybe Johnson really will make a dash for it this year before the storm really hits.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?
    As far as the rioters were concerned, yes that wasn't how you take over a country.

    However the attempted coup wasn't just that and its concerning that the violent thugs are paid attention to but the far more concerning thugs in suits are not.

    A substantial proportion of GOP people in power thought it acceptable to throw out the election results and to overturn them. In the past few years, even more people have been put into positions of power in states with that attitude.

    The US Constitution is not a democratic one, it put power in the hands of the politicians rather than the voters. Democracy has evolved but the GOP are turning their backs on it.

    The biggest danger is that a key state votes one way, but that legislators (or others) refuse to sign off on the vote and override it with their partisan preferences. If that happens, democracy dies in America.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465

    HYUFD said:

    Former Tory MP Nick Boles says he has voted Labour today for the first time since 1997

    https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ

    Anyone who prefers a Conservative government to a Labour one should NOT vote Conservative (aka CINO) today.

    If the Tories do not do extremely badly there is a greater chance of the car crash known as Boris Johnson continue his disastrous premiership through to the GE which will lead to Labour being in power for a generation.
    Having seen their work recently I think Johnson's team of Australian subversives can see a Johnson led Conservative Party comfortably win the next GE. They are very good at what they do, so no panic, no incoming Labour Government anytime soon.
    I think they delude themselves. It often takes the electorate a while to catch on, but they have caught on to the reality that Johnson is unfit for high office. There is still some suspicion about what a Starmer led government might be, but they still have time to evaluate.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 49,748
    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    "USA is a democracy at heart."

    But it is isn't at the moment. One of the two major parties of state, GOP, does not believe in democratic elections and their result. Vast numbers of them believe that the last election was fraudulent, despite there being zero evidence, and they are prepared to put a candidate back in the WH who has no interest in democratic norms or fair and free elections. It's not just a few cranks on the fringes - it is the vast majority and very heart of modern GOP.

    Look at how the party is treating Chenney, because she had did not agree that the election result should be overturned because one man doesn't like losing.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,144

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
    No GE in 2023 that is for sure.

    Maybe Johnson really will make a dash for it this year before the storm really hits.
    The inflation is driven by the pandemic and war, causing a supply-side crunch. There’s still full employment, and wages at the bottom end are keeping up with inflation. There’s a lot of unsatisfied demand in the economy.

    It’s a very unusual set of circumstances, last seen in the 1970s. It will eventually sort itself out (assuming we don’t get WWIII), so from the government’s point of view the time for an election is going to be 2024, when we should see falling oil prices.
  • pingping Posts: 2,143
    £ taken a hit
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?
    As far as the rioters were concerned, yes that wasn't how you take over a country.

    However the attempted coup wasn't just that and its concerning that the violent thugs are paid attention to but the far more concerning thugs in suits are not.

    A substantial proportion of GOP people in power thought it acceptable to throw out the election results and to overturn them. In the past few years, even more people have been put into positions of power in states with that attitude.

    The US Constitution is not a democratic one, it put power in the hands of the politicians rather than the voters. Democracy has evolved but the GOP are turning their backs on it.

    The biggest danger is that a key state votes one way, but that legislators (or others) refuse to sign off on the vote and override it with their partisan preferences. If that happens, democracy dies in America.
    Perhaps, but the president would still have to contend with a hostile house too. And ultimately those legislators can be change too.

    I just don't see it. A close election (hanging chad anyone?) maybe decided in this way. But Trump came nowhere near 'winning' in 2020.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,424
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
    It's the predicted response to a supply shock, no?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 552

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
    No GE in 2023 that is for sure.

    Maybe Johnson really will make a dash for it this year before the storm really hits.
    Pound weakening in the crosses. Weakening badly, and not just against the US dollar. In that scenario, the bank of England's predictions of inflation falling back quickly might need to be revised.

    This is a f8cking nightmare for the tories. Total and complete nightmare.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 10,465
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    Unfortunate that you think that of most of the UK population
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
    Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

    Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
    Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.

    No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.

    tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.

    Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
    So what is your view on the rights of the child?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Viability - which is the basis of the UK system (albeit 1990 medicine) is entirely intellectually consistent
    If you're claiming that a foetus is viable so it can't be aborted then that is one thing, so long as you're then accompanying that with offering the woman the opportunity to have that foetus delivered so it can survive as it has gestated to date rather than insisting she continues to carry it.

    If at 21 weeks a woman wants an abortion, and is denied it because the foetus is "viable", then she should be entitled to have a delivery of that foetus that can be born as a child and so she is no longer carrying it.

    However 21 week foetuses may be theoretically viable, but in reality it could be a very different matter. So would you be comfortable having delivery instead of abortion offered to the woman?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Not quite sure Jo and Joe Punter have caught on to this yet.
    At the moment it seems to be price rises due to a war they think will be over soon.
    Then back to normality.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 17,745
    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    Well looking at the numbers, what would you call it?
    Stagflation! Its just really bad that it is coming out to play. Does a lot of damage...
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
    Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

    Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
    Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.

    No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.

    tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.

    Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
    So what is your view on the rights of the child?
    A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.

    A foetus does not.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.
    How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    Unfortunate that you think that of most of the UK population
    Most of the UK population don't promote the "destruction of democracy" conspiracy theory.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 552
    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
    That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.

    In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.

    The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.

    IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    Unfortunate that you think that of most of the UK population
    Most of the UK population don't promote the "destruction of democracy" conspiracy theory.
    Its not a conspiracy theory, its what they tried out in the open.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
    If you had stopped 11 words sooner, you wouldn't look swivel-eyed.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,962


    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?

    This is the US. You use lawyers to achieve your coup..
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,849
    Selebian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Applicant said:

    HYUFD said:

    Applicant said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB

    MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp
    Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141

    Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
    True.

    Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.

    Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
    Thanks for the answer.

    Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
    Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?

    News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
    The scenario could play out differently, though.

    Opinion | Why Abortion May Not Stay a ‘State’s Rights’ Issue for Very Long
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/04/roe-wade-abortion-war-states-rights-nuclear-00030037
    I call "bullshit".

    When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.

    Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?

    Probably.

    But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.

    I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
    One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.

    I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
    In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.

    To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
    One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
    Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.

    Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
    Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
    I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…

    I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.

    If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
    Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?

    I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
    I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.

    Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.

    Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it.
    Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it.
    Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.

    Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
    In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
    Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?

    Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
    The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
    Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.

    The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
    You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
    In the UK, maybe yes.

    Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.

    Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).

    There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
    I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude.
    As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs.
    The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
    I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.

    If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.

    Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
    So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.

    I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
    I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

    Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?

    Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?

    What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
    Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
    I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.

    Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
    Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,

    Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.

    Neither viewpoint is irrational.
    We have had three miscarriages*, all before 12 weeks (one was very close to 12 weeks). We grieved for them all. But I am quite comfortable with abortion being permitted at that point, in fact I'm very much in favour of it (being permitted, although I can only imagine being in favour of it happening for a child of mine if there was severe risk to my wife). To me, those were lost babies, but they were not viable outside of the womb, they were entirely dependent on my wife for life, not independent humans.

    I differ from BR in no finding it not acceptable, for example, to abort (as in, kill) a healthy 37 week foetus. That is an independent human entirely viable outside of the womb. I'd be fine with offering pre-term c-section or induction with no obligations on the mother after delivery at that point (that's easy to say at 37 weeks of course, at e.g. 30 weeks and certainly at 25 weeks, the question of whether c-section or induction is actively killing the foetus and/or increasing risks of life-long problems for the foetus is less clear-cut). Somewhere between 12 and 37 weeks, there's a blurry, poorly defined line. I tend to see the 20 current week limit as not a bad place for the line, but that's partly due to the fact that it's there already. I'd probably be just as happy with an 18 or 22 week limit.

    (As an aside, we ended up having ultrasounds, after bleeding, for our two children at around 6-7 weeks, just after the heartbeat can be detected. But you can see the pulsing of life on the ultrasound, very clearly, though nothing else. No way I could have personally countenanced abortion for either of them after seeing that. But that doesn't change my general view, I'm against the US laws on no abortion after heartbeat).

    *We also have two children and another due in the next 3-4 weeks. We are very lucky, overall.
    That's a reasonable position. The arguments that (a) it's murder to kill an unborn child at the point of conception or (b) a child has no rights until the point it emerges from the womb are philosophically consistent, but also lacking in humanity.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,306

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power.
    There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,195
    Applicant said:

    How does he get round term limits?

    SCOTUS declares it legal...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466


    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?

    This is the US. You use lawyers to achieve your coup..
    Can you argue that for previous occasions? Al Gore?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    Applicant said:

    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.
    How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.
    You really think that is an issue that will try and stop him. He was happy to overturn an election he lost.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 820
    The US Republican Party is not interested in the nuance of whether you should have a cut-off of at 20 or 18 weeks, or the difficult circumstances of late-term abortion. They want to ban all abortion. Any laws they’ve introduced about lowering cut-off dates have been entirely tactical: their final goal is still to ban everything.

    Let us not be distracted by slight differences in opinion over the UK law when we are faced with the possible mass criminalisation of all abortion in the US.
  • pingping Posts: 2,143
    edited May 5
    £/$ 1.2348
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,582

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    We don’t have stagflation… yet

    At the moment we have inflation caused by an external commodity price shock and anemic growth driven by supply chain collapses (not due to Brexit - I was talking g today to someone who found it was easier to get plastic bottles for their Iowa plant from NZ than from the US… and even then he is ordering 15m ahead vs 3 months)

    It only becomes stagflation if we internalise it through wage increases that are not matched by productivity
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,306
    Applicant said:

    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
    If you had stopped 11 words sooner, you wouldn't look swivel-eyed.
    insert "flawed" before "democracy" and kjh's post was exactly correct
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 787
    Just been handed a leaflet by Yvette Cooper herself, pounding the mean streets of Knottingley in a bid to retain the final Labour councillor in the ward, after losing the other two to the LDs in quick succession.

    I’d just left the polling station after casting my vote - for the Labour bloke. I know him vaguely, local worthy, seen him in the pubs for years - and I had some big headphones on (classic 90s d’n’b, since you ask) so I didn’t say anything just smiled and nodded. Wish I’d said something encouraging to her now. Never mind.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,167
    edited May 5
    Applicant said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Most people can't see a way how he can possibly get around term limits. And he's already 75.

    (Edit: seems appropriate that my 1776th post is on US politics!)
    1776 — the year the St Leger was first run; the world's oldest Classic horserace, founded by Anthony St Leger, Old Etonian, Member of Parliament, Governor of St Lucia. Not sure about the connection with American politics though.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,466
    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power.
    There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.
    And I don't think it would have worked as the police remain, and the national guard and the army.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    Its not stagflation, we have full employment.

    Stagflation is something different to this.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 2,424
    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    Trump and his supporters tried numerous different attempts to overturn the election. Now lots of those that prevented it have been or are being replaced in their posts in the States that matter. If Trump stands again and loses in a similar way I would expect a coup attempt. The only thing stopping it's success I believe is that this time he is not the incumbent. If he wins genuinely I believe it will be impossible after that to remove him 4 years later.
    How does he get round term limits? And he'll be over 80.
    You really think that is an issue that will try and stop him. He was happy to overturn an election he lost.
    Yes, I do. In 2020 there was a plausible way for him to contest the election. Nobody has come up with a plausible way he gets round term limits.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,700
    AIUI the MPC is tasked with keeping inflation at 2%.
    They think it will hit 10%.
    Therefore, a rise of .25% is blatantly inadequate.
    So. They are wilfully not doing their only job.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,962


    What would have happened next to make it a close run thing? This is the bit I don't get. Surely the police would get their shit together and arrest the rioters. What we saw is not how you take over a county. You need to control the police, the army, the national guard (in USA), the TV, the internet. How was that going to happen?

    This is the US. You use lawyers to achieve your coup..
    Can you argue that for previous occasions? Al Gore?
    Not really a coup - that was a genuinely close call. What the GOP seems to be planning is using legal shenanigans to overthrow clear-cut election results, as Trump attempted very clumsily to do last time.

    Of course, they might not need to - Trump might well win fairly. I'm not sure whether that is more or less scary than him 'winning' by his henchmen fixing the results in key states.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530

    MISTY said:

    Nightmare predictions for the tories from the BoE.

    The stagflation from hell.

    10% inflation in Q4

    Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).

    Stagflation was a historical concept from A-Level politics about what went wrong in the distant dark 70s. Had no idea it was doing a comeback gig.
    We don’t have stagflation… yet

    At the moment we have inflation caused by an external commodity price shock and anemic growth driven by supply chain collapses (not due to Brexit - I was talking g today to someone who found it was easier to get plastic bottles for their Iowa plant from NZ than from the US… and even then he is ordering 15m ahead vs 3 months)

    It only becomes stagflation if we internalise it through wage increases that are not matched by productivity
    If wages increase in a way not matched by productivity, sustained over time, then that's internalising inflation.

    Stagflation is more than just inflation. Its also marked by high unemployment as seen in the seventies to early eighties.

    When we have full employment and companies seeking to hire we may have inflation, but the word for that is simply inflation not stagflation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,197
    We have reams of documents now about how they tried to overthrow the results of the election.

    The collaboration they secretly undertook to achieve a nefarious aim. If only there was a word for that.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 3,530
    dixiedean said:

    AIUI the MPC is tasked with keeping inflation at 2%.
    They think it will hit 10%.
    Therefore, a rise of .25% is blatantly inadequate.
    So. They are wilfully not doing their only job.

    That's wrong. They're tasked with keeping inflation at 2% (plus or minus 1%) over the medium term.

    They forecast that it will go up sharply, but then come back down sharply, so therefore will be back within target within their forecast period.

    That is their job. They're not supposed to overreact to every movement.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,306

    Farooq said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    If he had partially disrupted the electoral college vote count, he could have remained in power.
    There were multiple attempts to do exactly that, not the least of which was sending a violent mob to break in and attack the people certifying.
    And I don't think it would have worked as the police remain, and the national guard and the army.
    The presidency is decided by the electoral college vote. If the wrong guy is certified, arguably that's final.

    I wouldn't be confident either way about whether it would work or not. In any case, if it comes down to the police, national guard, or army having to act then it's extremely troubling. What if the person doing the coup has got loyalists in key positions?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,223
    MISTY said:

    kjh said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not that convinced. The GOP support for Trump's attempted coup should have been a massive driver for high Democrat turnout and for Independents and centrist Republicans to vote Democrat, and yet that was normalised or eclipsed by concerns over inflation or other issues.

    For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.

    There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.

    I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.

    The US political media cannot cope with Trumpism.

    They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"

    There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
    The coup will not fail next time because they now know what to do to make it work. And they have spent the last couple of years stuffing every elected office and official post they can with Trumpers who will support overturning whatever result is not convenient.

    If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.

    It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.

    Massive hyperbole. USA is a democracy at heart. Do you really believe that there was a chance of a coup in January 2021? How would the army and police react? By what mode would Trump stay in power? By banning further elections?
    At the time it seemed more farce than threat, but subsequent events have indicated it was actually quite a close run thing.

    Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
    I think these people would have murdered politicians had they got their hands on them, that day.
    I struggle to believe it. The overall impression I got from the footage was shock that they got as far as they did - it didn't feel at all pre-meditated.

    And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
    You don't have to be a leftie to realise that anyone this side of the Atlantic who is not a Trump hater is almost certainly a swivel-eyed nutter.
    And yet the Trump haters so often look like swivel-eyed nutters.
    I would like to think that people don't think I am swivel eyed, but I hate him because he is a crook, a liar and has destroyed the GOP causing huge damage to the strongest country on the planet and has taken a democracy to the verge of a dictatorship.
    That is demonstrably utterly untruthful and childish rubbish.

    In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.

    The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.

    IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
    Well there is no need to be rude and it isn't demonstrably rubbish or untruthful. Some positions are appointed and dictatorships don't start without gaining support in the first place with propaganda. Yes it is the GOPs voters but the GOP have been changed (I even said he has destroyed the GOP). That change has been driven by the likes of Trump and QAnon.
This discussion has been closed.