Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Sexual assault has nothing to do with sexual mores.

Clinton was screwing a willing intern. No proof he went around grabbing pussy because he could.

Why don't you dismiss Trump's accusers as easily as you dismiss Bill Clinton's? He was accused of rape In case you don't remember...

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Why don't you dismiss Trump's accusers as easily as you dismiss Bill Clinton's? He was accused of rape In case you don't remember...

I think the fact that Trump bragged about it openly helps make it more believable, though of course it doesn't make it more true.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I think the fact that Trump bragged about it openly helps make it more believable, though of course it doesn't make it more true.

The disconnect is probably because most of us would never say such horrible things unless they were both true and we were proud of doing them. But putting oneself into Trump's head is difficult. He's absolutely known for saying outrageous things and then either claiming he never said them or backpedaling with some other outrageous thing.

We are like the proverbial cat watching the glittering foil Christmas tree ornament. Fascinated by the alien quality of it, unable to look away, but unsure what to make of it either.

[Belz...]

Nice analogy.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by xjx388

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero.

This is cute that you pretend to not know who is in his cabinet. Republiloon, neonazi and conspiracy theorist, among other things. Nothing can go wrong, right?

Originally Posted by xjx388

If by voter suppression you mean stuff like Voter ID, I disagree with you. It's just a basic layer of security we use for everything from buying alcohol to driving a car to flying on an airplane. Why should voting be any different?

Of course it is totally accidental that those disproportionally and deliberately affect those voting on incorrect party.

BTW I seen awfully many comments like "wait and see" on internet from republicans. Yeah, let's wait and see. This is totally not deflection or delaying tactic because said republicans ran out of arguments. After all, it is impossible to judge, estimate or predict possible future based on actions, sayings and character of people in question.

And hey, maybe THIS time it will be really showers, not gas chambers. Wait and see.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by marplots

Just out of curiosity, is the "invading the locker room with underaged girls" also sexual assault? Or is that one on the other side of the line - the "creepy" or "improper" behavior side?

I just want to keep things sorted. Plus, I'm genuinely interested in how people classify things as sexual assault or not.

It all falls under "wrong" and up till now would have fallen under "disqualifying" but this is now a nation of retards.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Why don't you dismiss Trump's accusers as easily as you dismiss Bill Clinton's? He was accused of rape In case you don't remember...

Because Trump's accuser is Trump. He's admitted to sexual assault.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by marplots

That's the issue with Trump, what standard are we going to hold him to? If, under your standard, sexual assault is very common, then how does he stand out from the crowd? Statistically, I'd be dealing with dozens of "sexual predators" in my daily routine. Their proclivities would be invisible to me - are invisible to me - and functionally (since I'm not female) it makes no difference. The car mechanic fixes my car, the cashier rings up my groceries. Every single one of them could be a sexual predator under a tight enough standard. Eventually it gets down to thought crime level and borders on the weird idea (also from the Christians) of "having lusted in your heart." Somehow we need to not only sort this out but communicate it to half the population who are biologically driven to mate with the other half.

Yep you would never stop hanging out with someone just because they get handsy with women, as such trump's behavior is acceptable to you.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

To add: because "listen and believe" doesn't help any more than victim-blaming does.

It is like all that crap Cosby gets. Or Trumps buddy Roger Ailes.

Anyone else figure that there will be a leg cam for the white house press secretary now?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

On a separate occasion a woman came out and said Trump did that to her.
Several years later a video comes out with him bragging about it.

HE gets the benefit of the doubt.

On a separate occasion, it's said that he invaded the locker room with underage girls who were either partially or fully naked.
Several years later he brags about doing it.

Nah, this isn't a pattern at all! It's heresay!

Admittedly trump is not exactly a reliable witness to his own behavior. He seems to forget a lot of what he has said and done in the past.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

This is cute that you pretend to not know who is in his cabinet. Republiloon, neonazi and conspiracy theorist, among other things. Nothing can go wrong, right?


Of course it is totally accidental that those disproportionally and deliberately affect those voting on incorrect party.

BTW I seen awfully many comments like "wait and see" on internet from republicans. Yeah, let's wait and see. This is totally not deflection or delaying tactic because said republicans ran out of arguments. After all, it is impossible to judge, estimate or predict possible future based on actions, sayings and character of people in question.

And hey, maybe THIS time it will be really showers, not gas chambers. Wait and see.

Damn, man. I was with you right up to the Godwin. :\

[marplots]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep you would never stop hanging out with someone just because they get handsy with women, as such trump's behavior is acceptable to you.

The more interesting question, now that he's moving into the White House, is whether or not my behavior is acceptable to him.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is like all that crap Cosby gets. Or Trumps buddy Roger Ailes.

I've little doubt that Cosby is guilty, though I'm not too familiar with Ailes' case. However there's a difference between suspicion and certainty.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I've little doubt that Cosby is guilty, though I'm not too familiar with Ailes' case. However there's a difference between suspicion and certainty.

There was a 20 million dollar settlement in Ailes case, and while I know Trump might not be the best witness we do have his accounts saying that he does these things.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Setting aside the rather clear fact that "a quarter of the entire country" did not vote for him, she labeled people as deplorable who, in her view, exhibited deplorable behavior.

Don't want to be called a thief, don't steal.

Exactly. Every time we study the GOP base, we discover that, yeah, it's about half. Calling racism/sexism/homophobia "deplorable" seems fine to me. People got so mad at the "don't insult the voters" junk, but I noticed the journalists of color all said "she's right, though." And we know it, because we've been seeing it every day, for *centuries*.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Kind of scary, but also kind of liberating. Now that we know the US is full of racist bigots, we don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Well, some of us never had that option in the first place, since our lives damn well depended on it, and quite a few people were happy to make it very clear. And as I've been saying for a long time now, this is a very old fight, and a lot of us were expecting a backlash. And since they refuse to listen to us, and quite a few news outlets seem perfectly fine with it, we need more white people to start calling it out. This is a white people problem - a lot of y'all are crazy - and I mean in every part of the country, so none of that talk about "rednecks", that's just as bad. And yeah, us other groups have our racists and bigots, but they aren't trying to trash the planet in a decades-long hissy fit.

Quote:

This election was a test. An opportunity for republicans to repudiate their image of being racist bigots who will go to any length to stay in power. A way for conservatives to prove that they are reasonable human beings who do have a conscience, and were just misunderstood. A last chance for Americans to show the World that they really are good people at heart. All they had to do was not vote for Trump.

Y'all need to have a long talk with republicans about is proper governing - like not threatening the global economy because you don't want people to have healthcare, and not rewarding obvious incompetence. And I'm not even of the "all republicans are racist, and all democrats are saints" sort, but come on.

And again, this needs to be white folks, because we've been telling you it for decades, but they don't listen to us.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Unless you specifically voted for Clinton, yes you did.

In the U.S. system, there are only 2 parties that realistically have a chance of getting their candidate elected. (There are actually advantages to that as well as disadvantages.)

If you voted for Clinton, that was the only decision that did not favor trump. But from what I've seen here, that's not what you did.

The other options:
- Vote for Trump... your choice supported a bigot
- You decided to vote for a 3rd party, or spoil your ballot, or did not vote... you should have known that in a 2 party race, failure to support Clinton means less chance for her to become elected, giving a greater chance for a bigot to be elected. Your choice supported a bigot. Indirectly perhaps, but it still benefitted him.

Its kind of like if you see an injured puppy lying in the middle of the street. You may not be directly at fault if you just let it get run over by a car, but if you had the chance to save it (with no risk to your own life), then you should be considered at least partly responsible.

In the US, we use an electoral vote system. In the state of WA, there was absolutely 100% no doubt whatsoever that Clinton would win.

My vote for someone other than Clinton did absolutely 100% NOT favor Trump. My vote did not contribute to Trump's win in any fashion whatsoever.

Furthermore, they only "favored" Trump because you're assuming that those votes would have gone to Clinton. I mean, seriously, it's extraordinarily unlikely that votes that went to Gary Johnson would ever have gone to Clinton. If anything, any of the votes that the libertarian candidate garnered (which were significantly higher than for any other party) would only have strengthened Trump's win if they'd been forbidden to vote 3rd party.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant there, but here's my point: if, as I explained, those people take it personally that you criticize their idol or someone they look up to for "truth", then you are indirectly insulting them, even if that's not your intention. I'm basically turning your argument against you: you said you didn't care about their feelings on the matter, but that's exactly what you decry about the left ignoring the alledgedly out-of-luck Trump voters.

Okay, if you want to interpret it that way, I guess. I disagree. I am not responsible for a person taking on an insult directed at someone else. I am, however, responsible for them taking on an insult that was directed at them as part of a broad group of people.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What I'm saying is that the insult that you argue was taken by Trump voters must have come from the establishment: Hillary's "deplorable" comment, for example. Individuals posting their opinions on the net aren't part of that.

Yes, that comment did come from Hillary, and yes, I expect that made many people very angry, because it was not specific and it was directed at a large number of people indiscriminately.

No, individuals posting their opinion on the internet aren't part of the establishment. But individuals posting their opinion on the internet deriding an entire group of people is part of the problem of attacking an entire group indiscriminately.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Intolerance and bigotry should be among the top things that bother people when picking their leader, don't you think?

I personally think it's an important topic, yes. But I understand that it may not be the most important topic to other people. If the economy were stable, and people weren't looking at losing their jobs, and if people weren't worried about being attacked by terrorists and becoming dead, then sure - I'd argue that it should be pretty damn near the top of the list.

But let's take a hypothetical. Let's say that Joe lives in NY and works in a major building that has been targeted by terrorists. He is actually, genuinely, concerned for his life and the lives of his loved ones. That concern - for life and livelihood - is probably going to be his #1 concern. Joe might also care strongly that his cousin Jim can marry his life partner. But maybe he doesn't care as much for Jim's future happiness as he cares about his family's life.

Do you think Jim is out of line by placing his and his family's immediate life and livelihood at a higher priority than the happiness of non-family member?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Yeah but since we're talking about millions of people, it's not like Hillary could've spoken to them individually. What, exactly, could she and her party have done to correct this situation? If you don't know, that's fine, but I don't think anyone has a clue. And as I explained earlier, with the truly irrational, whatever you do will be taken negatively.

Correct the situation? Very little. She should have had the judgment to not say it in the first place. Barring that, she probably would have saved some votes if she had made a public statement apologizing for her comment. It may not have swayed the die-hard Trump fans, but it likely would have swayed at least some of the middle.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Setting aside the rather clear fact that "a quarter of the entire country" did not vote for him, she labeled people as deplorable who, in her view, exhibited deplorable behavior.

She didn't say that she views racists/etc. as deplorable people.

She claimed that half of Trump's supporters were racists/etc. And that she collectively refers to them as "deplorable".

She also conveniently ignored that about a 3rd of her own supporters share that same view. Do you think she refers to her own supporters as "deplorables"?

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Don't want to be called a thief, don't steal.

Or I suppose, if you don't want to be called a thief, don't stand near someone who is part of group of people that *might* steal, even though you're not actually certain that they *do*.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Emily's Cat, you may have posted this and I missed it. Which of Hillary's policies were going to make your life so unbearable that you couldn't vote for her?

Apologies if already answered, but this has been a fast moving thread.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I'd like to know just how despicable an opponent would have to be before EC wouldn't consider voting for him/her against Clinton? Buchanan? Duke?

I'm not inclined to play this game. I'm relatively certain that regardless of my own reasoning, regardless of my real concerns, regardless of the actuality of the situation, it would just be another arrow so someone would feel justified in criticizing me and considering me reprehensible or a bigot or whatever else they've got in their quiver. I have committed the unforgivable sin of failing to vote for Clinton. Truly, there is a special part of hell reserved for the likes of me.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Okay, if you want to interpret it that way, I guess. I disagree. I am not responsible for a person taking on an insult directed at someone else. I am, however, responsible for them taking on an insult that was directed at them as part of a broad group of people.

It doesn't matter: they will take it negatively and will vote the other way. How do you address that?

I'm going somewhere with that, I promise.

Quote:

Do you think Jim is out of line by placing his and his family's immediate life and livelihood at a higher priority than the happiness of non-family member?

No.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's been a while, but I don't recall claims that Bush Jr. was racist or homophobic (maybe the latter, but I don't recall it). He certainly was a bit dumb, but looks like an intellectual these days.

I sure don't think of McCain or Romney as racist or stupid. Not sure about their opinions regarding homosexuality offhand.

Bush Sr. was not racist or stupid. His views about homosexuality may be a bit dated today.

I'm not part of the left, I think, but I don't think that the left claims what you say it claims. As far as Trump goes, not sure I'd call him homophobic, but he certainly does seem stupid and his views seem to be compatible with racists' views, and this matters.

George W Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b020c386de2f5e
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...=1006032214455

Ronald Reagan
https://mic.com/articles/85379/10-re...mit#.dm0o8UsFs
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...xtreme-racist/

Nixon
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/c...ault-on-blacks
http://gawker.com/5712014/richard-ni...an-you-thought

They weren't attacked as racist at the time, simply because it wasn't done.

Caveat: I can't find anything about Bush Sr., mostly because I can't be bothered to sift through all of the Bush Jr. stuff that google seems to think I need to see instead. It may or may not exist, I'm just not going to put in that amount of effort.

I'm sure that people have cast democrats as racist as well. Again, I'm not going to bother with the research.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's been a while, but I don't recall claims that Bush Jr. was racist or homophobic (maybe the latter, but I don't recall it). He certainly was a bit dumb, but looks like an intellectual these days.

He's an interesting case - he had no clue how to reach out to black voters, but he kind of tried - and actually used same-sex marriage bans in order to to it. And his Latino outreach was fantastic compared to the dumpster fire that's the current GOP.

Stupid, he did get a lot - this is a mistake, he was more incurious, which still cost us greatly.

ETA: I remember far more people claiming that Obama was a horrible racist than Romney or McCain - especially when people were freaking out about Wright.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

It's hard to see it because the total numbers show low income support for Democrats overall. It's the shift compared to the historical performance. Non college-educated whites, lower income whites, union households in PA/IA/MI, etc. all gave less support to Democrats this year than they traditionally do.

Less support to Democrats does not equal voting for Trump. From what I saw, a lot of them went Green.

Quote:

ETA: Which goes towards the point "did they just suddenly become racist this year in particular?"

I see you're taking a page from the Emily's Cat school of dishonest debate. Do try to keep up with what I actually wrote.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

"Vote for our guy or you're a bigot" Great rallying cry, no way that might alienate people.

Completely ignoring all the actual evidence posted...

Creating more straw men and putting words in opponents' mouths...

Absolutely priceless. At least you're predictable.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by marplots

Just out of curiosity, is the "invading the locker room with underaged girls" also sexual assault? Or is that one on the other side of the line - the "creepy" or "improper" behavior side?

I just want to keep things sorted. Plus, I'm genuinely interested in how people classify things as sexual assault or not.

It wasn't a high school locker room, it was a models backstage changing area. So no, it wasn't sexual assault, or even unusual. His bragging about it was a little crass though.

Exaggerating it just gives his defenders ammunition. Better to focus on the actual bad stuff he's done, like the "grabbing pussy" tape.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Marcus

It wasn't a high school locker room, it was a models backstage changing area

The models in question were underage.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

You're forgetting that they don't need to: they can just make it very difficult to get it for affordable prices.

How do you imagine they're going to do that?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Can't the Supreme Court reverse its own decisions?

Possible, yes. In this context though, it's very implausible. IIRC, most of the cases where the court has reversed its prior ruling are cases where it lifted a restrictive interpretation to be more liberal. Progress marches forward. People might complain, even loudly, but those complaints almost never succeed in turning back the clock on social progress.

[Mumbles]

*Ahem*

Simply liking a single black guy doesn't mean you aren't racist against black people in general.

And Asians.

And Latinos. (Not a race, but you know what I mean)

And regardless, if you voted for Trump, you voted for a clearly incompetent white nationalist and sex abuser. The end.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

How do you imagine they're going to do that?

Cutting funding to planned parenthood or changing provisions of (or repealing) the ACA. Any number of creative ways to make it more difficult. Look at closing abortion clinics for an example of how to make it difficult without really doing something unconstitutional.

Quote:

Possible, yes. In this context though, it's very implausible. IIRC, most of the cases where the court has reversed its prior ruling are cases where it lifted a restrictive interpretation to be more liberal. Progress marches forward.

Not always. I think you need to look at history more closely.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

*Ahem*

Simply liking a single black guy doesn't mean you aren't racist against black people in general.

Sounds like the churches where I grew up. They weren't prejudice against black people they knew, just black people in the abstract. It wasn't the overt violent racism, it was the casual, condescending, "well, the stereotypes exist for a reason" and "you're a credit to your race" sort of racism.

Their bigotry against GLBTs was far more overt and nasty.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Sexual assault has nothing to do with sexual mores.

Clinton was screwing a willing intern. No proof he went around grabbing pussy because he could.

There were several women who came forward claiming sexual assault and harassment from Bill Clinton. It wasn't only one willing intern.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

It doesn't matter: they will take it negatively and will vote the other way. How do you address that?

I'm going somewhere with that, I promise.

I don't know. I'm assuming that not all of them are going to take it negatively if it's specifically addressed at a specific person. Some of them will, sure, but I think this is not the majority. You're never going to get all of the people to vote for the same candidate. Heck, even in the most landslide elections in US history (Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc.) they only got a little over 60% of the popular vote.

The whole thing with elections is about the margins. It's never about the die-hard party advocates. It's always about swaying the middle.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No.

Thank you. To you and I, it might seem hyperbolic that some people are frightened for their lives because of terrorists. It might seem short-sighted and backwards to be clinging to a job in an industry that is disappearing. But that doesn't make it *not* a concern. That it might be a larger concern to some people than gay & trans rights, women's rights, and minority rights doesn't, in my book, merit labeling them all as bigots, nor even implying that they're all supportive of and accepting of bigotry. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care about bigotry - they might care very much about bigotry... just not quite as much as they care about other issues.

I might disagree with their assessment. That doesn't mean I can't understand and respect it.

Sure, some of the people who voted for Trump are genuine racists. Some of them are genuine sexists. Some of them are intolerant of other religions. Some of them are downright hostile and hate-filled toward trans-people. I don't agree with their view. I find their views odious. But I also recognize that not everyone who voted for Trump falls into those categories.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Sexual assault has nothing to do with sexual mores.

Clinton was screwing a willing intern. No proof he went around grabbing pussy because he could.

To be fair, there is also no proof Donald Trump did that. Quite a few women came forward after that Access Hollywood tape aired. None of them accused him of "grabbing pussy".

Moreover, he didn't claim to assault women without their consent. He said that they would let him do it, because he was a star. In other words, he was bragging about them giving him consent.

There is an exception: Kissing. On the tape, he says he just starts kissing. That is precisely what the women who came forward said he did. I believe one, and only one, accused him of copping a feel on her behind.

Now I don't want to get into some recap of the exact accounts of his accusers. Maybe one of them also said he tried to steal second base without asking. I don't know, and it is not the point. The point is that those accusations didn't hurt him as much as it was expected they would hurt him, precisely because as time went by, the actual severity of the offenses was not as bad as it was made out to be, and the hype associated with them was much worse. As is so often the case, it was called "sexist" as if to say "case closed" and nothing else mattered. Hillary featured it in ads. I heard references to it here in Michigan many times on the weekend before the election.

His behavior was odious. There is no doubt. And yet, when all is said and done, would it persuade voters? I think it cost him a few percent of the vote, but he had just barely enough left.

People are tired of being hit over the head with the various "deplorables" clubs. In the case of sexism, it is not "sexist" to want to make out with women. It is not sexist to try and make out with women. It is a little bit sexist to forcibly kiss women, but, it could be a lot worse. In the reaction to the Access Hollywood tape, Hillary and her supporters allowed Donald to get away with the real scandal, because they focused on the phoney scandal of sexism. When all was said and done, he managed to convince people that when it came to employment opportunity, he wasn't sexist, and when it came to his personal life, he was a philandering billionaire who took advantage of wealth, power, and good looks to create opportunities in the bedroom. And I'm outraged, because....?

Maybe if Hillary had asked him if he supports and would enforce workplace harassment and non-discrimination laws, she might have gotten somewhere, but she didn't go that route. Instead, she went with the "He is personally offensive" route. She should have tried the other way. No one cares about sex scandals anymore.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by luchog

Completely ignoring all the actual evidence posted...

Oh, you mean the evidence that shows that 1/3 of Clinton's supporters are racist/etc.?

Originally Posted by luchog

Creating more straw men and putting words in opponents' mouths...

Seriously?
A: It's possible to not be a bigot, and to still vote for someone you think is a bigot
B: Not without enormous cognitive dissonance

It seems that you're taking the position that anyone who voted for Trump is either completely divorced from reality, or is accepting of bigotry. I might have exaggerated, but I don't believe my sarcastic remark qualifies as a strawman.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Oh, you mean the evidence that shows that 1/3 of Clinton's supporters are racist/etc.?

I was right, you didn't bother to read it.

Quote:

Seriously?
A: It's possible to not be a bigot, and to still vote for someone you think is a bigot
B: Not without enormous cognitive dissonance

It seems that you're taking the position that anyone who voted for Trump is either completely divorced from reality, or is accepting of bigotry. I might have exaggerated, but I don't believe my sarcastic remark qualifies as a strawman.

And as your previous attempt to put words in my mouth left out the "completely divorced from reality" part, your disingenuity is showing. "Completely divorced from reality" is a pretty fair description of someone who is voting for someone who has proudly proclaimed his bigotry, while still claiming to not be bigoted and not support bigotry.

Here's something else you probably won't read:
Donald Trump Is the Result of White Rage, Not Economic Anxiety

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Cutting funding to planned parenthood or changing provisions of (or repealing) the ACA. Any number of creative ways to make it more difficult. Look at closing abortion clinics for an example of how to make it difficult without really doing something unconstitutional.

This runs the risk of going well off topic.

Changing the provisions of ACA or even repealing it won't materially reduce access to contraception. ACA already allows employer groups to opt out of paying for contraception.

In order to have any material effect on contraception, congress would have to make it illegal - which is extremely unlikely to happen. If nothing else, there are a number of women for whom a pregnancy represents a very tangible risk to their lives. Additionally, oral contraception is also the most effective preventive treatment for endometriosis, and is indicated for a handful of other conditions (I can't recall them right now). It represents no significant health risks, and is not classed as a narcotic. There is no justification, even imagined, that would allow oral contraception to be classed as an illegal substance. There is no rationale that could be used to entice the FDA to treat it as a dangerous drug and forbid sales. The US government has no part in the pricing of oral contraceptives - they do not bargain with manufacturers for price, not even for Medicare which is government funded.

The absolute most extreme thing they could possibly manage to do would be to make it an excluded benefit for ACA plans - meaning that the government wouldn't include the cost of contraception toward essential health benefits that are subsidized. But the cost is relatively low for generic oral contraception.

Somehow making planned parenthood illegal would reduce one distribution vector for oral contraceptives - one that many lower income women use. But they are not the sole channel for it.

Honestly, I don't think there's any plausible means for the government to have a big impact on birth control. It would take a monumental shift to a full-fledged tyranny for that to occur. And as much as people are complaining and prognosticating the end of democracy right now, I really give it very low odds. I could be wrong, but that's not a bet I would take.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Not always. I think you need to look at history more closely.

I didn't say always, I said "most of". I chose "most of" specifically because I have not done an exhaustive study of US supreme court cases and reversals. The handful that I skimmed through were all removals of prior restrictions. I grant that there may be others, but I doubt that they are many.

Folks have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade many times now, with no success. The internet has given wingnuts of all flavors a platform that makes them sound greater than they are. But I don't think that the full Republican Panel that we've got going forward could manage to overturn it. And that's one that I think has at least a not-completely-idiotic rationale behind it. I firmly believe it's a woman's right, but even I can understand that from the perspective of some (particularly the fathers), it may be reasonably viewed as murder. If that one can't be undone, what makes you think they'll manage to overturn any of the others?

***Humor*** Heck, even Supreme Court Justices have to have some sense of self-preservation, don't they?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't know. I'm assuming that not all of them are going to take it negatively if it's specifically addressed at a specific person.

I think you're wrong. I think the vast majority will. Think about how emotional people get when someone even voices a negative opinion about their favourite sports team. Humans get emotionally involved in a lot of things and derive their identity from the things they are involved in and enjoy. If you belittle that thing, they take it very personally.

I submit to you that it is impossible to address the wrongness of irrational concerns or opinions without offending a good portion of your audience. I agree with you that you shouldn't insult them on purpose and repeatedly, but I think you're going to wind up insulting them whether you ignore them, correct them, correct a radio or TV host they listen to, or any other solution you can think of. That's the nature of irrationality.

Quote:

It's always about swaying the middle.

I don't think the middle are the ones who are said to have been fed up with the Democratic party establishment.

Quote:

It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care about bigotry - they might care very much about bigotry... just not quite as much as they care about other issues.

I might disagree with their assessment. That doesn't mean I can't understand and respect it.

Maybe, but as I said, I think in the modern age such views expressed by Trump should be a deal breaker unless there's an overwhelming reason. Even if those voters didn't agree with his racist rants, other reasons outweighed that consideration, and I don't think there's any reason to at this point. We're not at war, facing extinction or some other major catastrophe. And before you say that these people think that the situation is very bad, let's remind ourselves that they are wrong.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by luchog

I was right, you didn't bother to read it.

I'm sorry, did you want me to only read the cherry-picked part, and not look at other data as well? My apologies for seeking a larger, less biased viewpoint.

ETA: No, I am NOT gong to bother to read an opinion piece that begins by slandering an entire skin-color of people indiscriminately, and simply seeks to blame all white people for the situation.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In order to have any material effect on contraception, congress would have to make it illegal - which is extremely unlikely to happen.

I can't agree with that. I think they have plenty of methods to make it less accessible.

Quote:

Somehow making planned parenthood illegal would reduce one distribution vector for oral contraceptives - one that many lower income women use. But they are not the sole channel for it.

But you already see that there are ways to make it considerably more difficult if they put their minds to it. And I think we can agree that they put a lot of their mind to it. Unhealthily so.

Quote:

I didn't say always, I said "most of".

Sorry, I was responding specifically to the "progress marches on" bit.

The way I see it, when a civilisation gets cozy, it inches to the left and towards liberal values, until it inches too far and causes a violent backlash to the right. The backlash is an example of progress going backwards. Also, I think it's not impossible to see a return to, for example, slavery in many parts of the world.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

ETA: No, I am NOT gong to bother to read an opinion piece that begins by slandering an entire skin-color of people indiscriminately, and simply seeks to blame all white people for the situation.

Aw, but blaming white people is all the rage now!