Public support for the rail strike is increasing – politicalbetting.com
This polling from Opinium is really quite remarkable because it is very rare for there to be public backing of industrial action that is going to make the daily lives of many people even harder.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
One for you Sunil: this evening on my way back home to North Acton with the Central Line train stopped at White City, the woman next to me asked whether it was going to Ilford. I had to ask her to repeat the question, because I thought I'd misheard.
Well, Redbridge, Gants Hill, Newbury Park, Barkingside, Fairlop, Hainault and Grange Hill are either in Ilford North or just on the border
How's this for Corbynista bias?
The Elizabeth Line serves Sam Tarry's Ilford South, but NOT Wes Streeting's Ilford North
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
One for you Sunil: this evening on my way back home to North Acton with the Central Line train stopped at White City, the woman next to me asked whether it was going to Ilford. I had to ask her to repeat the question, because I thought I'd misheard.
Well, Redbridge, Gants Hill, Newbury Park, Barkingside, Fairlop, Hainault and Grange Hill are either in Ilford North or just on the border
How's this for Corbynista bias?
The Elizabeth Line serves Sam Tarry's Ilford South, but NOT Wes Streeting's Ilford North
It doesn’t go anywhere near Uxbridge and South Ruislip either.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Other union leaders and Labour politicians need to up their act.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Yep, it’s the Lynch Pinch.
fpt to Gardenwalker:
I think Iain Sinclair has gone to the south coast somewhere.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
Andy Murray has gone from being British to Scottish in less than an hour. The rest of us have to wait until October 2023.
Probably later.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Other union leaders and Labour politicians need to up their act.
Have to admit when he handed Jonathan Gullis his testicles live on TV that was something else.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
Andy Murray has gone from being British to Scottish in less than an hour. The rest of us have to wait until October 2023.
Probably later.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
Andy Murray has always seen himself as Scottish more than British, he was pro independence in 2014 even before Brexit.
He will still have to compete for Britain though as this UK government is still not going to allow any change to the status of the union
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
Andy Murray has gone from being British to Scottish in less than an hour. The rest of us have to wait until October 2023.
Probably later.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
Andy Murray has always seen himself as Scottish more than British, he was pro independence in 2014 even before Brexit.
He will still have to compete for Britain though as this UK government is still not going to allow any change to the status of the union
Do you insist on labelling your whisky 'Brititch'?
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
This government are shit at everything, all the time.
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
also trying to blame labour for the strikes was particularly unconvincing
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
Interesting how one faction of PBers started off by highlighting the strike, and are now downplaying it.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
Andy Murray has gone from being British to Scottish in less than an hour. The rest of us have to wait until October 2023.
Probably later.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
Andy Murray has always seen himself as Scottish more than British, he was pro independence in 2014 even before Brexit.
He will still have to compete for Britain though as this UK government is still not going to allow any change to the status of the union
Do you insist on labelling your whisky 'Brititch'?
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
This government are shit at everything, all the time.
An early look at tomorrow's local by-elections. Something for everyone but one thing I am sure of - it will not be a Lib Dem win-fest like last week. There are Con defences in Buckinghamshire, Croydon, East Riding of Yorkshire, and Wyre. Lab defences in Liverpool and Newark and Sherwood. Ind defence in Middlesbrough and Ind elected as Con in South Derbyshire. Then there is Eilian Siar! There are 2 vacancies where there was only I nomination for 2 seats last time out. An Ind and a Con were elected unopposed but this time there are multiple candidates - including the first Lib Dem in the Western Isles since 2007. In passing a stunning fact - there are currently 112 Conservative councillors on Buckinghamshire council.
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
Interesting how one faction of PBers started off by highlighting the strike, and are now downplaying it.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
Scottish tennis has-been Murray out of Wimbledon in the 2nd Round
Andy Murray has gone from being British to Scottish in less than an hour. The rest of us have to wait until October 2023.
Probably later.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
Andy Murray has always seen himself as Scottish more than British, he was pro independence in 2014 even before Brexit.
He will still have to compete for Britain though as this UK government is still not going to allow any change to the status of the union
Do you insist on labelling your whisky 'Brititch'?
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Yep, it’s the Lynch Pinch.
fpt to Gardenwalker:
I think Iain Sinclair has gone to the south coast somewhere.
"If Noel-Tod wants to argue Soyinka is as good a poet as Larkin, fair enough, but his argument doesn’t reference art or merit. He is treating poetry as a sub-set of sociology — arguing that we should read non-white poets because they offer us insights into social and political issues."
"Decolonising the curriculum takes place at a superficial level, whereas I taught Larkin to my students because his poems move me at a visceral level: they convey the sense that, yes, this is what it is like to be haunted by fear and loneliness and impotence."
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
Murders too. It is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the USA.
Enshrined in any pro-life law should be compulsory maternity and child support paid by the father to the mother in order that the consequences to fathers exist, not just to mothers.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
This government are shit at everything, all the time.
I dunno, sounds like the decor at No 10 has been dramatically improved.
An early look at tomorrow's local by-elections. Something for everyone but one thing I am sure of - it will not be a Lib Dem win-fest like last week. There are Con defences in Buckinghamshire, Croydon, East Riding of Yorkshire, and Wyre. Lab defences in Liverpool and Newark and Sherwood. Ind defence in Middlesbrough and Ind elected as Con in South Derbyshire. Then there is Eilian Siar! There are 2 vacancies where there was only I nomination for 2 seats last time out. An Ind and a Con were elected unopposed but this time there are multiple candidates - including the first Lib Dem in the Western Isles since 2007. In passing a stunning fact - there are currently 112 Conservative councillors on Buckinghamshire council.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Yep, it’s the Lynch Pinch.
fpt to Gardenwalker:
I think Iain Sinclair has gone to the south coast somewhere.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
Seems possible - indeed likely - that RvW may put CRT in the shade as a burning issue for 2022.
Which should help the Democrats in critical midterm races. Question is, will it be enough?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
Murders too. It is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the USA.
Enshrined in any pro-life law should be compulsory maternity and child support paid by the father to the mother in order that the consequences to fathers exist, not just to mothers.
Funny how pro life protects unborn babies, but not their mothers shot by guns.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
Quite, the attack of railway workers is hypocritical. Pensioners and bankers fill your boots. Higher wages, Great. Just not for them .
Ken Clarke was on saying this at the beginning of last week. His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't. "Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
This government are shit at everything, all the time.
I dunno, sounds like the decor at No 10 has been dramatically improved.
IF your interior design model, is Benjamin Disraeli's favorite Levantine brothel (a true Tory choice).
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
As I have said before. 5% across the public sector could be agreed tomorrow. With some moaning of course. It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation. If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral. Shame those who breach it. Or fail to meet it. It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared. I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
As I have said before. 5% across the public sector could be agreed tomorrow. With some moaning of course. It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation. If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral. And shame those who breached it. Or failed to meet it. It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared. I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
This government thrives on division. It wants a fight. It wants headlines. It wants Tories frothing about unions like it’s 1979, just like it wants a fight with the EU, to rekindle the Brexit wars.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
Quite, the attack of railway workers is hypocritical. Pensioners and bankers fill your boots. Higher wages, Great. Just not for them .
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
The kicker (and partially explains this polling shift) is announcing the intention to give the pensioners a 10% increase.
Quite, the attack of railway workers is hypocritical. Pensioners and bankers fill your boots. Higher wages, Graf. Just not for them .
But what about the paltry 1-2% increases to large numbers of public sector workers? They're all surely going to end up on strike.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hardcore pro choice" here.
Hardcore pro life means believing all abortion is murder and must be illegal so the opposite of this - hardcore pro choice - would be a belief that all abortion is fine, ie there should be no controls or prohibitions whatsoever even in very late pregnancy.
"If Noel-Tod wants to argue Soyinka is as good a poet as Larkin, fair enough, but his argument doesn’t reference art or merit. He is treating poetry as a sub-set of sociology — arguing that we should read non-white poets because they offer us insights into social and political issues."
"Decolonising the curriculum takes place at a superficial level, whereas I taught Larkin to my students because his poems move me at a visceral level: they convey the sense that, yes, this is what it is like to be haunted by fear and loneliness and impotence."
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
The govt advocates, encourages and celebrates higher wages. It’s a benefit of Brexit apparently.
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
Last year PB was full of people saying that increased wages for Lorry Drivers was a direct benefit of Brexit and wouldn't cause inflation. This year? Not so much.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
37% for making abortion mostly illegal is about the same percentage as voted for Goldwater in 1964 or Bush Snr in 1992 ie the conservative core vote in the US
One of the best things that could happen for Labour before the next election would be if there is indeed another Scottish independence referendum and the no side wins again, because that would mean that in the event of a hung parliament the SNP wouldn't be able to use the idea of another referendum as a bargaining chip in order to support a progressive alliance.
"If Noel-Tod wants to argue Soyinka is as good a poet as Larkin, fair enough, but his argument doesn’t reference art or merit. He is treating poetry as a sub-set of sociology — arguing that we should read non-white poets because they offer us insights into social and political issues."
"Decolonising the curriculum takes place at a superficial level, whereas I taught Larkin to my students because his poems move me at a visceral level: they convey the sense that, yes, this is what it is like to be haunted by fear and loneliness and impotence."
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
evidence plz
“There are good-faith and bad-faith arguments on all of the sides. The good-faith arguments deserve to be heard. But it’s the bad faith arguments that rule social media and our public discourse and have worked their way up to our elected officials.
“Take a look at what happened, for example, after another close call with an extreme pro-choice bill. Virginia legislators debated a bill similar to New York’s. The bill was tabled, but in the midst of the hubbub Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said, in response to a question about what would happen if an infant survived an attempted abortion, that “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.””
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
As I have said before. 5% across the public sector could be agreed tomorrow. With some moaning of course. It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation. If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral. And shame those who breached it. Or failed to meet it. It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared. I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
This government thrives on division. It wants a fight. It wants headlines. It wants Tories frothing about unions like it’s 1979, just like it wants a fight with the EU, to rekindle the Brexit wars.
The economy and good governance is secondary.
Well. Yes it does. That is taken as read of course. However. They haven't established what the dividing line is clearly enough here. Simple, visceral hatred of Trade Unions has no resonance for those under 45. Neither does simple, visceral fear of inflation. Of course. 5% is a wages/ prices policy. But at least it is a figure folk can get their head around as a target. Something younger people do understand.
The power of Mick Lynch's public appearances. He puts the case for his staff across powerfully and with humour, making ministers look flat footed and evasive.
Yep, it’s the Lynch Pinch.
fpt to Gardenwalker:
I think Iain Sinclair has gone to the south coast somewhere.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'hardcore pro choice" here.
Hardcore pro life means believing all abortion is murder and must be illegal so the opposite of this - hardcore pro choice - would be a belief that all abortion is fine, ie there should be no controls or prohibitions whatsoever even in very late pregnancy.
That isn't a 30% belief surely.
Would interpret Roberts use of "hardcore" differently. Not in ideological but rather electoral terms.
> Hardcore pro-choicers might well have caveats, questions, even objections pertaining to abortion conditions & limits, but would still VOTE in a solidly pro-choice way for reasonably pro-choice candidates.
> Hardcore anti-abortionists would take the opposite tack, perhaps having specific issues & objections, but subsuming them in their VOTING behavior.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
As I have said before. 5% across the public sector could be agreed tomorrow. With some moaning of course. It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation. If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral. And shame those who breached it. Or failed to meet it. It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared. I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
This government thrives on division. It wants a fight. It wants headlines. It wants Tories frothing about unions like it’s 1979, just like it wants a fight with the EU, to rekindle the Brexit wars.
The economy and good governance is secondary.
Well. Yes it does. That is taken as read of course. However. They haven't established what the dividing line is clearly enough here. Simple, visceral hatred of Trade Unions has no resonance for those under 45. Neither does simple, visceral fear of inflation. Of course. 5% is a wages/ prices policy. But at least it is a figure folk can get their head around as a target. Something younger people do understand.
The government doesn’t give a toss about anyone under 50.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Over the past fifty years, abortion access has generally increased and increased across the world. (With the exception being the end of RvW in the US.) And, of course, support for legal abortion is currently at an all time high in the US.
BUT...
In the vast majority of countries and states, "abortion on demand" is limited to 22 weeks or less (and in most cases 12-14 weeks).
The exception being Alaska. Where it is simply "viability". Which out in the wilds is presumably the 23rd or 24th trimester.
"If Noel-Tod wants to argue Soyinka is as good a poet as Larkin, fair enough, but his argument doesn’t reference art or merit. He is treating poetry as a sub-set of sociology — arguing that we should read non-white poets because they offer us insights into social and political issues."
"Decolonising the curriculum takes place at a superficial level, whereas I taught Larkin to my students because his poems move me at a visceral level: they convey the sense that, yes, this is what it is like to be haunted by fear and loneliness and impotence."
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
evidence plz
“There are good-faith and bad-faith arguments on all of the sides. The good-faith arguments deserve to be heard. But it’s the bad faith arguments that rule social media and our public discourse and have worked their way up to our elected officials.
“Take a look at what happened, for example, after another close call with an extreme pro-choice bill. Virginia legislators debated a bill similar to New York’s. The bill was tabled, but in the midst of the hubbub Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said, in response to a question about what would happen if an infant survived an attempted abortion, that “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.””
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
Sister, niece and sister in law all have it. Nasty too, Vaccine’s seems to bewearing off, both in terms of avoiding the plague and averting bad symptoms.
An early look at tomorrow's local by-elections. Something for everyone but one thing I am sure of - it will not be a Lib Dem win-fest like last week. There are Con defences in Buckinghamshire, Croydon, East Riding of Yorkshire, and Wyre. Lab defences in Liverpool and Newark and Sherwood. Ind defence in Middlesbrough and Ind elected as Con in South Derbyshire. Then there is Eilian Siar! There are 2 vacancies where there was only I nomination for 2 seats last time out. An Ind and a Con were elected unopposed but this time there are multiple candidates - including the first Lib Dem in the Western Isles since 2007. In passing a stunning fact - there are currently 112 Conservative councillors on Buckinghamshire council.
Further to my last point Buckinghamshire council tax payers put £1,456,000 into Conservative pockets in basic allowances alone. If you add in SRAs it is probably over £2million.
In most States, politicians would simply have said "12 week old incest victims? don't be silly, that doesn't happen in our state." In Mississippi, it's not so simple.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
Pretty much everywhere in the world has decided on pretty much the same view as the Catholic Church pre 1921: it becomes a human life at the quickening (i.e. 12 to 14 weeks). After that period, there are very few places with abortion on demand (ah hem, Alaska). Before that point, most places are OK with it.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
What *exactly* is Sefcovic whinging about now? And why does he think he has a remit over UK internal rules? Or is this just bog-standard Brussels performative sabre-rattling?
What the UK does in the UK is little to do with him, and we know that exporters to the EU need to comply with EU rules.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
Which basically accords with view I just expressed.
Keep in mind, that in the USA this issue has been been bubbling up - and often over - for half century now. And not only are voters pushed to take a stand, and then some, but they are very rarely able to vote on specific options or conditions. Instead, these are mostly fodder for political debates and campaign commercials.
So IF you cannot have YOUR perfect compromise, but are more-or-less compelled to make the comprise internally with yourself - the question usually boils down to - WHICH side are you on?
As for abortion as Robert notes sensible people are happy to have a discussion about when exactly the limit should be and most would put it at around 20 weeks but probably haven't looked into it medically or physiologically developmentally.
On topic, I suspect it's a proxy for someone giving the Government (and everyone believes it really is the Government, not Network Rail) a fight over the cost of living crisis - everyone is worried about their own wages not keeping up with inflation.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
As I have said before. 5% across the public sector could be agreed tomorrow. With some moaning of course. It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation. If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral. And shame those who breached it. Or failed to meet it. It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared. I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
This government thrives on division. It wants a fight. It wants headlines. It wants Tories frothing about unions like it’s 1979, just like it wants a fight with the EU, to rekindle the Brexit wars.
The economy and good governance is secondary.
Well. Yes it does. That is taken as read of course. However. They haven't established what the dividing line is clearly enough here. Simple, visceral hatred of Trade Unions has no resonance for those under 45. Neither does simple, visceral fear of inflation. Of course. 5% is a wages/ prices policy. But at least it is a figure folk can get their head around as a target. Something younger people do understand.
The government doesn’t give a toss about anyone under 50.
Well no. That is also taken as read. I'm just trying to answer the question "What is the government doing about strikes?" Which is above my pay grade (which is nowt), and not really in my interests, cos I want the shower out.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
No government spokesperson has yet articulated to my satisfaction how they reconcile their desired "high wage, high productivity" economy with their refusal to countenance demands for higher wages.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
You do realise that you will someday pick up your state pension and you will find you are mighty glad it has held its own against inflation?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
Which basically accords with view I just expressed.
Keep in mind, that in the USA this issue has been been bubbling up - and often over - for half century now. And not only are voters pushed to take a stand, and then some, but they are very rarely able to vote on specific options or conditions. Instead, these are mostly fodder for political debates and campaign commercials.
So IF you cannot have YOUR perfect compromise, but are more-or-less compelled to make the comprise internally with yourself - the question usually boils down to - WHICH side are you on?
Binary not multiple choice.
Yes, it is classic polarisation
We saw the same god-awful process with Brexit. I am a Soft Leaver, who could have voted Remain on the day. I wanted us to stay in the Single Market - EEA/EFTA - and then rethink in 5-10 years. Avoiding so much anguish
Not ideal but a decent compromise, honouring the vote without driving Remainers into a frenzy
Instead both sides pushed each other - egged on by the worst in both of them - until the Remainers were literally trying to annul the vote and cancel democracy and the Leavers decided any Brexit is better than none (and better than destroying democracy) and so here we are
Repeat across western nations in many debates. Polarisation. It is a bane
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
No government spokesperson has yet articulated to my satisfaction how they reconcile their desired "high wage, high productivity" economy with their refusal to countenance demands for higher wages.
Indeed, if I wanted to be cruel I could repost some of the comments from mid 2021 from some PBers lauding the huge wage increases.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
37% for making abortion mostly illegal is about the same percentage as voted for Goldwater in 1964 or Bush Snr in 1992 ie the conservative core vote in the US
Goldwater was rather strongly pro-choice. His wife was active in Planned Parenthood and it later transpired he'd arranged an abortion (illegally at the time) on behalf of his daughter, who became pregnant at an early age.
He was a strong conservative, but the issue of abortion was neither defining for him nor, at that time, conservatives.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
What *exactly* is Sefcovic whinging about now? And why does he think he has a remit over UK internal rules? Or is this just bog-standard Brussels performative sabre-rattling?
What the UK does in the UK is little to do with him, and we know that exporters to the EU need to comply with EU rules.
Of course this kind of bullying is one of the main reasons we left in the first place.
But it is Brussels's default mode, as I know, having dealt with it for years in a previous job.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
You do realise that you will someday pick up your state pension and you will find you are mighty glad it has held its own against inflation?
I've known from the day my state pension wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm piss when I retire, which is why I loaded up my private pensions.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
The State Pension is either £141 or £185 per week.
The median rail industry worker involved in the strike earns around £38k per year, or £730 per week.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Here you go. The numbers are a little different to mine, but not much:
19% say abortion should be “legal in all cases” - ie on demand up to birth. No questions
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
Which basically accords with view I just expressed.
Keep in mind, that in the USA this issue has been been bubbling up - and often over - for half century now. And not only are voters pushed to take a stand, and then some, but they are very rarely able to vote on specific options or conditions. Instead, these are mostly fodder for political debates and campaign commercials.
So IF you cannot have YOUR perfect compromise, but are more-or-less compelled to make the comprise internally with yourself - the question usually boils down to - WHICH side are you on?
Binary not multiple choice.
Yes, it is classic polarisation
We saw the same god-awful process with Brexit. I am a Soft Leaver, who could have voted Remain on the day. I wanted us to stay in the Single Market - EEA/EFTA - and then rethink in 5-10 years. Avoiding so much anguish
Not ideal but a decent compromise, honouring the vote without driving Remainers into a frenzy
Instead both sides pushed each other - egged on by the worst in both of them - until the Remainers were literally trying to annul the vote and cancel democracy and the Leavers decided any Brexit is better than none (and better than destroying democracy) and so here we are
Repeat across western nations in many debates. Polarisation. It is a bane
Fortunately, we have the temperate Leon’s/SeanT to moderate debate and lead us to a rationale, actionable consensus.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
You do realise that you will someday pick up your state pension and you will find you are mighty glad it has held its own against inflation?
I've known from the day my state pension wouldn't be worth a bucket of piss when I retire, which is why I loaded up my private pensions.
Which with inflation at 10%+also be worth little more than a bucket of piss.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
The State Pension is either £141 or £185 per week.
The median rail industry worker involved in the strike earns around £38k per year, or £730 per week.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
You do realise that you will someday pick up your state pension and you will find you are mighty glad it has held its own against inflation?
I've known from the day my state pension wouldn't be worth a bucket of piss when I retire, which is why I loaded up my private pensions.
Which with inflation at 10%+also be worth little more than a bucket of piss.
If things turn out ok I could retire in six years when I hit 50.
Is more people (who are likely working from home as a result if not in any case) being in favour of strikes the same as those, especially those on PB, who live in charming houses with large gardens and perhaps an apple orchard to wander around being in favour of lockdowns?
Nah, I'm normally anti strikes and would like to see most unions proscribed, however I flipped to pro strike when the government confirmed pensioners would get their 10%+ triple lock increase.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
No government spokesperson has yet articulated to my satisfaction how they reconcile their desired "high wage, high productivity" economy with their refusal to countenance demands for higher wages.
Indeed, if I wanted to be cruel I could repost some of the comments from mid 2021 from some PBers lauding the huge wage increases.
Please do. The guilty suspects are still among us, although they have largely moved onto some new bollocks.
Comments
The Elizabeth Line serves Sam Tarry's Ilford South, but NOT Wes Streeting's Ilford North
Other union leaders and Labour politicians need to up their act.
I think Iain Sinclair has gone to the south coast somewhere.
I wonder if SCOTUK will ask to see the legislation.
I'm expecting SCOTUK to eventually rule that an advisory referendum is outside the powers of the Scotland Act.
Then if it is an election campaign, how do you sort out the franchise issue, which means if we use the GE campaign as a proxy, 16 and 17 years are buggered, expect legal action.
The BT strike may end up more damaging
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10955595/WFH-hit-BT-staff-strike-threat-millions-face-tremendous-disruption.html
He will still have to compete for Britain though as this UK government is still not going to allow any change to the status of the union
His experience, under Heath and Thatcher, was that folk are angered by strikes. But, after about a week, then start to ask "What is the government doing about it?" Thatcher had a narrative about what she was doing about it. Heath didn't.
"Nowt to do with us whatsoever", which appears to be the chosen line of this lot, isn't a convincing explanation.
No need to wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_whisky
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
"If Noel-Tod wants to argue Soyinka is as good a poet as Larkin, fair enough, but his argument doesn’t reference art or merit. He is treating poetry as a sub-set of sociology — arguing that we should read non-white poets because they offer us insights into social and political issues."
"Decolonising the curriculum takes place at a superficial level, whereas I taught Larkin to my students because his poems move me at a visceral level: they convey the sense that, yes, this is what it is like to be haunted by fear and loneliness and impotence."
https://unherd.com/2022/06/black-kids-should-study-larkin/
Enshrined in any pro-life law should be compulsory maternity and child support paid by the father to the mother in order that the consequences to fathers exist, not just to mothers.
Sympathies may change downstream if people feel the consequences of an inflationary spiral caused by rampant strike action all over the shop but we're not there yet.
I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
Eilian Siar? Naw, it's me enkel.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1542226458231406594
I’m honoured to receive the Politician of the Year at this year’s Civility in Politics Awards. The award comes with a £1500 donation to my choice of charity which will be Mabon Trust.
Which should help the Democrats in critical midterm races. Question is, will it be enough?
The railways workers did not cause inflation.
It wouldn't be inflationary, as it is below inflation.
If it were then used as a benchmark for the private sector, and for director's pay and dividends, and pensions and benefits uprating, and bonuses in the financial sector, it would be a tool for screwing down a potential wage/price spiral.
Shame those who breach it. Or fail to meet it.
It would have the benefit of at least being a policy. And could be seen as consistent, fair and equitably shared.
I don't see why I should do the government's thinking job for them, but there we are.
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Mississippi House Speaker says 12-year-old incest victims should continue pregnancies to term
https://thehill.com/policy/3541783-mississippi-house-speaker-says-12-year-old-incest-victims-should-continue-pregnancies-to-term/
The economy and good governance is secondary.
LAB: 41% (-1)
CON: 34% (+3)
LDM: 10% (=)
SNP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 5% (=)
Via @SavantaComRes, 24-26 Jun.
Changes w/ 17-19 Jun.
ComRes back in the herd
Hardcore pro life means believing all abortion is murder and must be illegal so the opposite of this - hardcore pro choice - would be a belief that all abortion is fine, ie there should be no controls or prohibitions whatsoever even in very late pregnancy.
That isn't a 30% belief surely.
Despite the divisions in this country I'm glad abortion and gun rights aren't issues in this country.
We can still have a sensible discussion about both.
We should be proud that our Prime Minister is someone whose mistress had at least one abortion during their affair and it isn't an issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/ruthlessly-organised-tory-rebels-plot-1922-takeover-to-oust-boris-johnson
I’m a bit sceptical about the existence of organised Tories, but interesting…
“Take a look at what happened, for example, after another close call with an extreme pro-choice bill. Virginia legislators debated a bill similar to New York’s. The bill was tabled, but in the midst of the hubbub Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said, in response to a question about what would happen if an infant survived an attempted abortion, that “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.””
https://www.thebulwark.com/politics-of-abortion-are-polarized/
However. They haven't established what the dividing line is clearly enough here.
Simple, visceral hatred of Trade Unions has no resonance for those under 45.
Neither does simple, visceral fear of inflation.
Of course. 5% is a wages/ prices policy. But at least it is a figure folk can get their head around as a target. Something younger people do understand.
> Hardcore pro-choicers might well have caveats, questions, even objections pertaining to abortion conditions & limits, but would still VOTE in a solidly pro-choice way for reasonably pro-choice candidates.
> Hardcore anti-abortionists would take the opposite tack, perhaps having specific issues & objections, but subsuming them in their VOTING behavior.
I find that as disturbing as the other extreme, who want abortion made illegal even with rape and incest
Hideous polarisation
Over the past fifty years, abortion access has generally increased and increased across the world. (With the exception being the end of RvW in the US.) And, of course, support for legal abortion is currently at an all time high in the US.
BUT...
In the vast majority of countries and states, "abortion on demand" is limited to 22 weeks or less (and in most cases 12-14 weeks).
The exception being Alaska. Where it is simply "viability". Which out in the wilds is presumably the 23rd or 24th trimester.
A week is a long time etc.
I see Aaron Bell is thinking of throwing his hat into the 1922 ring.
What *exactly* is Sefcovic whinging about now? And why does he think he has a remit over UK internal rules? Or is this just bog-standard Brussels performative sabre-rattling?
What the UK does in the UK is little to do with him, and we know that exporters to the EU need to comply with EU rules.
So the workers who pay for the pensioners have to earn less and pay more task for the Tory client vote.
They can get fucked.
For context, 40% of people don’t use trains at all. And only 30% took more than about 5 trains all year.
Edit: the overground caveat may be inportant: are they striking?
Keep in mind, that in the USA this issue has been been bubbling up - and often over - for half century now. And not only are voters pushed to take a stand, and then some, but they are very rarely able to vote on specific options or conditions. Instead, these are mostly fodder for political debates and campaign commercials.
So IF you cannot have YOUR perfect compromise, but are more-or-less compelled to make the comprise internally with yourself - the question usually boils down to - WHICH side are you on?
Binary not multiple choice.
I'm just trying to answer the question "What is the government doing about strikes?"
Which is above my pay grade (which is nowt), and not really in my interests, cos I want the shower out.
We saw the same god-awful process with Brexit. I am a Soft Leaver, who could have voted Remain on the day. I wanted us to stay in the Single Market - EEA/EFTA - and then rethink in 5-10 years. Avoiding so much anguish
Not ideal but a decent compromise, honouring the vote without driving Remainers into a frenzy
Instead both sides pushed each other - egged on by the worst in both of them - until the Remainers were literally trying to annul the vote and cancel democracy and the Leavers decided any Brexit is better than none (and better than destroying democracy) and so here we are
Repeat across western nations in many debates. Polarisation. It is a bane
He was a strong conservative, but the issue of abortion was neither defining for him nor, at that time, conservatives.
But it is Brussels's default mode, as I know, having dealt with it for years in a previous job.
The median rail industry worker involved in the strike earns around £38k per year, or £730 per week.
https://fullfact.org/economy/RMT-strike-salary/
Increasing State Pensions faster than inflation is fully justified, even though it has not been done here.