Federal Abortion Ban introduced.
Federal Abortion Ban introduced.
You're viewing a single thread.
114 comments
-
Welp we're fudged.
-
I’ve been saying that this is one big punishment from the bourgeois ruling class to the people who didn’t want to play by their rules and chose to sit out of the election.
Enough people will fold by the 2026 midterms and go back to voting the Democrats. All they have to do is to sit and wait for Trump to dish out the punishment for them.
The system is designed to punish. You can’t force the Democrats to change their policy.
-
The system is designed to punish. You can’t force the Democrats to change their policy
Definitely true but it also appears to be the case that the whole system is collapsing so it may have been the right call to give the Democrats the middle finger in the interest of destroying American empire.
-
I don't think anyone seriously thought that the Dems would change. The issue is that there was zero reason for someone to vote Dems, since they do not propose any alternative to Republican policies.
-
I have seen many people on the internet saying they won’t vote Democrats unless they change their position on Palestine. So there are people who think that. The post-election survey also noted that the most common reason for sitting out of the election was because of Palestine.
-
I hold both of these views simultaneously
Do I think they will change their stance? No. But if they do I’m willing to vote for them
-
some people probably have that hard line without thinking the party will actually do it
-
The post-election survey also noted that the most common reason for sitting out of the election was because of Palestine.
Do you have a link? Honestly did not think yankbeasts cared enough about anti-imperialism to be a significant factor in a presidential election. But reassuring if true.
-
It was posted on Hexbear a couple times over the last few weeks. I don’t have the direct link but others here should know/can find the source of what I was talking about.
-
-
-
-
I don't see how this makes sense at all, but ok lol
-
Not sure why you seem to imply people want to (or should) use the ballot-box as an "enlist as a dog of empire" box.
The most marginal demographics in the West have been getting raked over the coals since time immemorial; if more people need to see the inhumanity of bourgeoisie-rule in order to precipitate class-consciousness, that is better than scapegoating minorities to enjoy brunch another election cycle.
-
-
Yeah, Republicans could theoretically pass this since they control house and Senate...we're fudged
-
They would have to end the filibuster in the Senate to do so, I assume. Not saying that they won't -- it was always a cope for Democrats to not do so.
-
They won't hesitate to do that for their pet issue.
-
I dunno I can totally see them saying "muh norms and traditions are more important than any single bill".
-
They did it in 2016 when they wanted to confirm a justice by exempting that issue specifically. Maybe they'll invent a loophole for themselves
-
Republicans don't give a single shit about "norms", which tbf is their only respectable quality. This wouldn't be unprecedented either, since in the past they eliminated filibustering for passing the government budget (which is why the parliamentarian was able to block the minimum wage increase, because the parliamentarian decides what is and isn't part of the "budget" and the dems tried to pass the minimum wage through the budget).
-
I was talking about Democrats.
-
-
-
-
The filibuster is imaginary. It takes 60 votes to surpass unless they decide to just use the other path that only takes 51. If you have a cohesive majority the filibuster isn’t real.
-
-
Don't you need more than a simple majority to pass an amendment?
-
It's not an amendment. We don't have the bill text but it appears that based on the title it will be them implementing a ban based on some interpretation of the 14th constitutional amendment, section 1 of which reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-
this is where bipartisanship comes in
-
Dems will vote yes and then pat themselves on the back for being “classy losers”.
-
I'm predicting a party-line vote, with a couple red-state democrats crossing the aisle.
-
Most likely scenario imo. And of course those red dems will not be expelled from the party because it's important to have a big tent.
-
-
-
-
-
-
114 comments