What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.

[crazy canuck]

Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.

Nothing gets by you

[Jacob]

Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.

What's your point?

[Eddie Teach]

Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.

What's your point?

You're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.

[Jacob]

You're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.

Sounds like this is your first day on languish

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well, he's certainly more likely to be impacted than Canadians.

What's your point?

You're moaning about something that isn't happening, isn't likely to happen, and even if it did wouldn't affect you.

This is a good example of: "Idiot in a political thread on a discussion forum takes the time to cry about someone talking about something that he thinks they shouldn't." Congratulations—that's the lowest and most boomer form of internet communication.

[Eddie Teach]

At least I'm not the idiot that thinks driving drunk is hunky dory.

[Admiral Yi]

Eddie, you're fired up.  Maybe a couple breaths and notch it down a tab.

[Eddie Teach]

 

[alfred russel]

You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?

My expectation is this:

GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.

GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.

While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.

As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.

I think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.

[Jacob]

I think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.

Fair enough. In any case, we'll see what happens.

[crazy canuck]

You are the second person to bring up race...why is that relevant? I may not be as well educated regarding old school racial thinking, but was it generally the practice to make contraceptives available to whites and forbidden among african american citizens?

My expectation is this:

GOP in-groups will not find themselves particularly inconvenienced by old or new anti-contraception legislation and administration.

GOP out-groups will find themselves subject to restrictions - whether imposed directly through legislation aimed at them, or indirectly through legislation or administration that makes access significantly harder in practice.

While it's a broad generalization so exceptions exist, it appears to me that the GOP in-group is primarily white, and that most non-white folks are in the GOP out-group.

As such my expectation is that you personally will not be affected by any of this to any great extent, nor will people demographically similar to you. However, it is my expecatation that people different from you - less wealthy, younger, less white, less able to pass for a likely GOP voter when convenient - are going to be impacted.

I think you are out of touch. I'm in Atlanta. We voted for Biden with a margin in excess of 50%. Crosswalks are painted in rainbow colors to support gay rights. Democrats have total control of the city. At work, people wear progressive clothing to work and have stuff like Obama bobbleheads at their desks: I truly can't imagine someone wearing a Trump 2020 shirt...In real life, I don't think anyone thinks I'm a republican, but if they did passing for one certainly wouldn't make my life better. Wearing a MAGA hat around the city or to social stuff would be super weird.

It may be that Georgia goes full blue from its current purple, and I hope it does.  But if it doesn't, then does it really matter that there is an island of sanity within the state?

[Razgovory]

This is a first: Politifact goes out of its way to debunk AR.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3w5vmtuAQ2inC_AdU9Cp9IVVY6mQQtm6J8wfDEJVRojIaDzMepqQTTs1s#Echobox=1659705694-1

[alfred russel]

This is a first: Politifact goes out of its way to debunk AR.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/04/kat-cammack/gop-talking-point-suggests-birth-control-not-risk-/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3w5vmtuAQ2inC_AdU9Cp9IVVY6mQQtm6J8wfDEJVRojIaDzMepqQTTs1s#Echobox=1659705694-1

It is like a whack a mole of distorting what I have said. A quote from earlier:

"I'd wager extensive amounts of money. What base would there be for Alabama to keep a contraceptive ban? Even its normal conservative christian churches don't favor it.

Yes I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception."

The congresswoman's statement that they debunked:

"In no way, shape, or form is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited."

Politifact then rated it false with arguments that a subset of contraceptives could be considered considered connected to abortion by some and banned on those grounds. Which is something I acknowledged and agreed with pages ago.

[alfred russel]

Raz, it is a straight up dishonest representation of what I've been arguing. I start with:

"I agree that some forms of birth control could be banned on the basis they constitute abortion, but that isn't the same as a blanket ban on contraception"

and then you say that this ruling (copied in full) debunks me:

Our ruling
It is true that, so far, no state has banned forms of contraception. But the threat appears very real. And the absolute nature of Cammack's statement — saying there's "no way, shape, or form" that access to contraception is at risk — is not accurate. We rate the statement False.