US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[brihard]

Abortions takes lives that otherwise would become infants and women too though.

Setting aside the pure right to choose and one’s views on that - I recognize those views differ: the cases in Texas are a direct result of doctors’ reticence to perform life saving care so they don’t break state law. This is a direct result of changes to Texas law in 2021 that were triggered into effect following SCOTUS’ 2022 decision in Dobbs. It’s a phenomenon that was directly predicted.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Harris endorser and wet ass pussy star Cardi B had some difficulty with a teleprompter while endorsing the VP.

You would think someone with 169M social media followers, and who attracted 75'000 attendees to her concert, would be able to speak a few words from her heart about the woman she was endorsing when the teleprompter went down.

"Simply paid to act"- Netizens react as Cardi B's teleprompter malfunctions while endorsing Kamala Harris for President​

 

[Pelorus]

Abortions takes lives that otherwise would become infants and women too though.

Not necessarily. This article details 18 women who were forced to suffer needlessly to carry non-viable pregnancies to term as a result of these new laws.

In post-Roe America, women detail agony of being forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term

ABC News interviewed 18 women as part of the series "On the Brink" about abortion in America after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

abcnews.go.com

ABC News brought together 18 women from across 10 states who say their medical care was impacted by abortion bans — bringing several of them to the brink of death. All these women had wanted their pregnancies and none of them had initially sought abortion care. These women said they have been turned away in medical emergencies for not being sick enough, had their health care delayed or denied due to state laws, and been told they have to continue their pregnancies despite devastating, fatal diagnoses for their babies, even if their pregnancies put their health at risk.

 

[Furniture]

It happened because of changes to Texas law following a Dobbs v Jackson, a Supreme Court ruling Trump has cheered on, made by a Republican majority that is the result of three of his appointees. He has explicitly applauded and taken credit for the reversal of Roe v Wade, but nice try.

So based on this, the Supreme Court is inherently biased by whoever has appointed more judges, meaning the Supreme Court isn't actually impartial and unbiased?

Will you carry that energy forward when the court is eventually filled by partisans from "your side"?

Trump says a lot of dumb things... Why would it be any different in this case?

I'm not super read up on US politics, but my understanding was the Supreme Court decision was based on how Row Vs. Wade was decided, not the actual decision itself. That seems to me to be what a court is supposed to do, make judgements on the law based on procedural and technical rules.

The deaths are squarely the result of Republican policy curtailing women’s rights and putting limits on their reproductive health. That policy manifests both at State legislative levels, and in Republican judicial appointments.

So again, just to be 100% sure. You're claiming the party that appoints judges impacts their judgements? Does that mean that when the Democrats appoint more judges that the supreme court's ruling will be just as political?

So essentially, it's winner takes all, and politics trump laws? Seems a pretty dangerous way to interpret how the system is works.

I’m not painting them as ‘bad’ for having those views; they did that themselves and I’m just pointing it out.

Did they, or did you toss out an accusation based on your partisan views and are waiting for them to defend themselves from the back foot?

It just goes to show how much partisan politics can impact one’s ethics and decency.

I agree on this. People's politics seem to shape their views, even when they themselves seem to be oblivious to it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Setting aside the pure right to choose and one’s views on that - I recognize those views differ: the cases in Texas are a direct result of doctors’ reticence to perform life saving care so they don’t break state law. This is a direct result of changes to Texas law in 2021 that were triggered into effect following SCOTUS’ 2022 decision in Dobbs. It’s a phenomenon that was directly predicted.

It's a real mess. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or bad thing the president can't make the final decision on something like that.

 

[suffolkowner]

So based on this, the Supreme Court is inherently biased by whoever has appointed more judges, meaning the Supreme Court isn't actually impartial and unbiased?

Will you carry that energy forward when the court is eventually filled by partisans from "your side"?

Trump says a lot of dumb things... Why would it be any different in this case?

I'm not super read up on US politics, but my understanding was the Supreme Court decision was based on how Row Vs. Wade was decided, not the actual decision itself. That seems to me to be what a court is supposed to do, make judgements on the law based on procedural and technical rules.


So again, just to be 100% sure. You're claiming the party that appoints judges impacts their judgements? Does that mean that when the Democrats appoint more judges that the supreme court's ruling will be just as political?

So essentially, it's winner takes all, and politics trump laws? Seems a pretty dangerous way to interpret how the system is works.


Did they, or did you toss out an accusation based on your partisan views and are waiting for them to defend themselves from the back foot?


I agree on this. People's politics seem to shape their views, even when they themselves seem to be oblivious to it.

Isnt the whole point to control who gets appointed to the SC based on ideology?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not necessarily. This article details 18 women who were forced to suffer needlessly to carry non-viable pregnancies to term as a result of these new laws.

The article about the women dying is sad, same with that one of women being forced to carry non-viable pregnancies to term. Laws that ennable that should be changed IMO.

That doesn't detract from the fact many of the estimated 1,037,000 abortions carried out in the US in 2023 would have become infants and women. I'm just critical of the "if it saves someone's life" type of justification.

 

[dimsum]

. I'm just critical of the "if it saves someone's life" type of justification.

Can you expand on that? Ectopic pregnancy, etc is a thing.

I mean, “dying in childbirth” is also a thing. I have a friend who, for medical reasons, her doctor said that she should not have another child. They weren’t sure she would survive it.

 

[mariomike]

This article details 18 women who were forced to suffer needlessly to carry non-viable pregnancies to term as a result of these new laws.

In the Sixties, in Ontario, abortion could be legally performed only to save the life of the woman, so there were practically no legal abortions.

The pregnant daughters of the rich were sent to reliable physicians who did abortions for cash.

Perhaps, a similiar situation exists today in some U.S. states. Or, perhaps not.

 

[Quirky]

Whenever the left bring up the topic of abortions, like they did in this thread, you know they’re getting desperate.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can you expand on that? Ectopic pregnancy, etc is a thing.

Sure. It comes down to trading one life for another. I find it a hypocritical when people argue for safety concerns regarding the mother (which I agree with and support by the way) but then make arguments about "it" not being a baby until birthed and such. Be pro choice but accept its trading one life for another (either for medical reasons, financial, trauma, personal choice).

 

[brihard]

So based on this, the Supreme Court is inherently biased by whoever has appointed more judges, meaning the Supreme Court isn't actually impartial and unbiased?

Will you carry that energy forward when the court is eventually filled by partisans from "your side"?

Trump says a lot of dumb things... Why would it be any different in this case?

I'm not super read up on US politics, but my understanding was the Supreme Court decision was based on how Row Vs. Wade was decided, not the actual decision itself. That seems to me to be what a court is supposed to do, make judgements on the law based on procedural and technical rules.


So again, just to be 100% sure. You're claiming the party that appoints judges impacts their judgements? Does that mean that when the Democrats appoint more judges that the supreme court's ruling will be just as political?

So essentially, it's winner takes all, and politics trump laws? Seems a pretty dangerous way to interpret how the system is works.

I’ll address this al at once for simplicity. Of course the appointment of SCOTUS justices is political and partisan. Has been for as long as you or I have been alive, and well before that. It’s literally something that’s raised as an issue in every election, if any justices are reasonably expected to retire soon. I’m not saying it’s good or that it ought to be the case, but any objective look at US politics has to acknowledge that reality.

I do not contend that an individual justice’s rulings in any given case is a direct result of which party held the presidency when they were appointed. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Rather, by the time a jurist is established enough that they’re a viable contender for appointment to the Supreme Court, they generally have quite a body of work in terms of appellate decisions. Their views on various specific subjects, their general political views, and their particular philosophy on judicial interpretation of the constitution are generally quite apparent. The president in office is therefore in a position to pick their potential appointee from a short list of known quantities who can be reasonably expected to rule in ways aligned with that president and their party’s overall philosophy. Obviously this is far from foolproof, but it works in a general sense. So yes, and this goes for both parties- picking Supreme Court nominations can have predictable effects when it comes down to long-anticipated issues like, say, abortion rights.

Did they, or did you toss out an accusation based on your partisan views and are waiting for them to defend themselves from the back foot?

They did. Anyone who sees a political discussion linking partisan politics to a couple of women who died seeking maternal care, and then their reaction is just to laugh at it- that person SHOULD be on the back foot. It’s a pretty gross thing to be signalling by default. The onus is absolutely on someone in that position - Fishbone and Quirky in this particular case - to show why it shouldn’t reflect poorly on them personally. They can defend themselves or not, that’s on them.

I reject your suggestion that reacting to people who appear to be laughing at a post about women dying for lack of maternal care can only come from a partisan standpoint. It‘s just basic decency.

I agree on this. People's politics seem to shape their views, even when they themselves seem to be oblivious to it.

I’m well aware of my politics and my views, thanks. I’m comfortable with where I sit ethically.

 

[brihard]

Whenever the left bring up the topic of abortions, like they did in this thread, you know they’re getting desperate.

Dying because you can’t receive care for an ectopic pregnancy or a non-viable fetus is a pretty desperate situation. None of this is hypothetical. It has happened and will happen again. Judicial appointments, legislation, and policy caused this. The reaction to that is reasonable and inevitable. Some women aren’t super content being treated as disposable birthing vessels lacking in their own agency. A lot of men aren’t comfortable with women being seen as lesser either. These things do inform votes.

 

[suffolkowner]

I think the abortion thing in the states with respect to the election is more curiosity about whether Republican women will break for Harris and what that impact be

 

[Quirky]

Bring a full on Harris presidency, without Biden around, it’s going to be something else to watch from up here.

 

[dimsum]

Whenever the left bring up the topic of abortions, like they did in this thread, you know they’re getting desperate.

As in “will women be able to have life saving operations”?

Yeah, that sounds pretty desperate. But not in the political sense.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is there any way the US president can veto the supreme court and simply make abortion legal?

 

[dimsum]

Is there any way the US president can veto the supreme court and simply make abortion legal?

Isn’t that what Harris is considering?

 

[dimsum]

Bring a full on Harris presidency, without Biden around, it’s going to be something else to watch from up here.

You’ll have to excuse my interest in this topic, since I have a bunch of family in the US, including a number of women.

So for me, this isn’t just “entertainment”. This directly affects my family.

 

[Lumber]

Is there any way the US president can veto the supreme court and simply make abortion legal?

Not "veto" but perhaps pass an executive order? Can't see that lasting more than a day before the SC quashes it though.