Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:Someone who doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

as I said, you've completely missed the point

as I said, I promise you I haven't

well let's clarify: It seems to me like you think I have a problem with celebrities voicing their opinions on political issues. And while I do personally find that behavior kind of gross, that takes a backseat to my desire to see any voice of reason throw their hat in the ring on the abortion topic (ditto environmental).

As I made clear in my earlier post, my problem is that the democratic mechanism is basically nothing but this, a coastal elite outrage machine leveraging social media platforms in an effort to try to drive public opinion. It's a completely pitiful fight against a group of people who have pledged their very souls to a religious ideology that forbids abortion under any circumstances, and empowers them to believe they are actually doing their god's work, and has a much stronger political machine at their disposal towards that end.

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding about your posts so we can move past this.

i got bugs wrote:Based off #2 it's shocking the decision hasn't been changed at any point there was turnover in sc judges

B wrote:Anyone think the 13th Amendment protects women from being forced to put their health and well-being at risk to carry a fetus to term that they do not wish to carry to term? Wouldn't that be involuntary servitude? I mean women die from childbirth in the US more often than in a lot of countries.

13th Amendment wrote:Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Green Habit wrote:

i got bugs wrote:Based off #2 it's shocking the decision hasn't been changed at any point there was turnover in sc judges

This is correct, and to expound on why, when Carter got zero SCOTUS appointees while Reagan and HW Bush got five, all replacing members of the Roe majority, everyone thought the precedent was doomed way back in the early 1990s. But O'Connor, Kennedy, and (especially) Souter went the other way, and they held the cards for another quarter century or so until the former two eventually ceded to Roe foes, and now it looks like time has run out.

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:I'm already past it.

unbelievable

warehouse wrote:when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

epilogue wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:I'm already past it.

unbelievable

Should that be my new username?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

warehouse wrote:when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:Someone who doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

as I said, you've completely missed the point

as I said, I promise you I haven't

well let's clarify: It seems to me like you think I have a problem with celebrities voicing their opinions on political issues. And while I do personally find that behavior kind of gross, that takes a backseat to my desire to see any voice of reason throw their hat in the ring on the abortion topic (ditto environmental).

As I made clear in my earlier post, my problem is that the democratic mechanism is basically nothing but this, a coastal elite outrage machine leveraging social media platforms in an effort to try to drive public opinion. It's a completely pitiful fight against a group of people who have pledged their very souls to a religious ideology that forbids abortion under any circumstances, and empowers them to believe they are actually doing their god's work, and has a much stronger political machine at their disposal towards that end.

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding about your posts so we can move past this.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

warehouse wrote:when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

epilogue wrote:Someone who doesn't deserve to have an opinion.

as I said, you've completely missed the point

as I said, I promise you I haven't

well let's clarify: It seems to me like you think I have a problem with celebrities voicing their opinions on political issues. And while I do personally find that behavior kind of gross, that takes a backseat to my desire to see any voice of reason throw their hat in the ring on the abortion topic (ditto environmental).

As I made clear in my earlier post, my problem is that the democratic mechanism is basically nothing but this, a coastal elite outrage machine leveraging social media platforms in an effort to try to drive public opinion. It's a completely pitiful fight against a group of people who have pledged their very souls to a religious ideology that forbids abortion under any circumstances, and empowers them to believe they are actually doing their god's work, and has a much stronger political machine at their disposal towards that end.

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding about your posts so we can move past this.

whats the alternative? Seems to me you are saying the left is just screaming into the void and it doesnt fucking matter.

Which, i agree.

Social media is filled with all the same memes and posts and i just sit here thinking "who are you trying to fucking convince? we're all the same. you are preaching to the choir"

Nothing matters anymore. I give up.

simple schoolboy wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

warehouse wrote:when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come

Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?

simple schoolboy wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

warehouse wrote:when are they going to overturn loving v virginia? brown v board of ed?

seriously, is there a site to gamble on this stuff? if we're gonna go backwards i might as well profit off of this bullshit.

Gilead here we come

Do you actually believe that conservatives want to revisit these decisions?