9 ms·

I think "muddling" in the subtitle is a key point, because that's exactly how things are going. These reversions, due to in effect religious fundamentalism and

by bmitc 5y ago

I think "muddling" in the subtitle is a key point, because that's exactly how things are going. These reversions, due to in effect religious fundamentalism and pandering to what I only hope are minority crowds emboldened by gerrymandering and the electoral college, are concerning. The U.S. will continue to stagnate if all we ever discuss and rabble about are fringe issues. Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a tough issue no matter what, and so a compromise is needed. There will never be a totally clean solution. Why are people so damn concerned with decisions others make? In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated. Education in the country is a major concern and has domino effects that take decades to correct, but the more the less educated come into power, the harder it gets to revert. And we're trending in the wrong direction. I also think the section on inequality is greatly misleading. Inequality keeps getting worse and worse by basically any measure. Picking out any data over the past two years is likely to be very, very biased, because the economy has been wildly swinging back and forth. Data can be picked to basically back up any position. The middle class is getting absolutely hammered by taxes while the rich just keep on keeping on in a tax-free world not experienced by others. > Bloomberg reports that the world’s richest 500 people have lost a total of $1 trillion this year. I can't view the article, but aren't those "losses" likely to be paper losses, i.e., unrealized losses? When lower and middle class people have losses, they are realized. People lose jobs, money, homes, etc. Rich people "losing" money in the various markets and their investments continue to reap dividends and other monetary gains and will eventually recuperate. Articles like this are akin to burying one's head in the sand and consist of cherry-picked data to say everything's okay.

skizm 5y ago
> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a big issue that will continue to come up because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure. In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Abortion is a great example of an issue where the resolution of discourse isn't adequate to actually address the problem. It's not a binary yes/no question and biologically cannot be, but somehow people are stuck debating as if it is. In reality it is a matrix with time on one axis and extenuating circumstances on the other.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    How is it not binary? There's no reason to obfuscate the issue. All you need to do is to answer two questions: 1. Are human beings _human beings_ beginning with conception? 2. Is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being intentionally? W.r.t. (1), if you answer "no", then the second question is moot. It may still be the case that abortion would be morally illicit, but that would be a different question. If you answer "yes", then you must answer the second question. If you answer "yes", then you are a utilitarian/consequentialist. The conflict has largely shifted to the second question over time. (For the sake of clarity, the word "intentionally" is important. Treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother by removing the affected implanted tissue will result in the death of the unborn, but this is not an intended consequence, only a tolerable side effect given what's at stake. These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate.)
    - pjc50 5y ago
      > These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate They are unavoidably entangled with the abortion debate, because so many of the legislators and public are ignorant of such fine distinctions, and allowing a total abortion ban in the US _will_ result in maternal fatalities in these situations.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It is a matrix specifically because many people answer no to #1 at conception but yes to #1 at a later date. Many people also answer yes to #2 based on circumstances, even if this means that they are utilitarians or consequentialists. Even the consideration of intent you mentioned adds at least one factor to the matrix.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I for one hope the Roe decision diffuses the abortion question in the long term. At least theoretically, having the decision state by state means more people can agree with their local legislation
- triceratops 5y ago
  In practice states do whatever they like, even if something is wildly unpopular with voters. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4#Imple...
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I dont follow. Your link shows 65% support for the amendment. what am I missing?
    - triceratops 5y ago
      Read the section that I linked to specifically. The state's implementation ensured that in practice, most felons wouldn't have their voting rights restored because they hadn't paid fees and fines. And in many cases, had no way to know how much they owed. The idea of restoring voting rights was wildly popular (65% in favor) yet it didn't actually happen.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        OK, I see what you are getting at now. I was expecting to see something about the public support for the implementation where voting is contingent on paying fines.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  The senate minority leader already started talking about banning abortion across the entire US [0]. The states are gearing up to fight each other when they pass laws banning abortion for their citizens in other states like Texas either has done or is doing [1]. And on the other side you've got Connecticut allowing their citizens to counter-sue [2]. So no matter what side you're on it doesn't seem like it's about to be diffused. It seems like without federal law one way or the other states are going to be fighting each other. It sounds like chaos. Edit: Also, although it's tempting to think of "red" and "blue" states, the minority party in each state is humongous. Almost 40% of New York state voted for Trump in 2020 [3]. Desantis in Florida only won his election by 49% [4]! And a higher minority percentage in Mississippi voted for Biden in 2020 than minority in New York voted for Trump [5]. As much as it is easy to think of there being separate political halves of the US it's just not the case. There is huge Democrat and Republican presence in every state. [0] https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/ https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio... [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-roe-wade-abortion-adoptions/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-ro... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/nyregion/connecticut-texas-abortion-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/nyregion/connecticut-texa... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_gubernatorial_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_gubernatorial_ele... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
masklinn 5y ago
> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Because the GOP found that by making it a wedge issue they could have a reliable lock on the religious right.
- danShumway 5y ago
  It's impossible for me to over-stress how toxic the GOP has been to any kind of productive conversation about fetal rights as a concept and how transparently opportunistic they've been about using abortion as a means to preserve power, lock in voters, and push back on progressive policies in general. It makes it incredibly difficult to talk to many pro-life people about abortion in any context, because there's a huge effort happening to convince Evangelical voters that: A) literally any sympathy for the parent, nuance, or lack of ferver is the same as wanting the unborn to die. B) it's a primarily religious issue and that being an Evangelical means voting a certain way and aligning with a set of political issues, and that conversations about abortion must be approached through a religious lens. C) that because it's a religious issue, there is one singular "correct" way to focus on reducing abortion, and any deviation from that specific strategy is literally a religious failing. I see people just shut down during conversations about abortion, like even talking about it is itself a sin. ---- There is still a lot of nuance; I'm not trying to lump an entire group together or demonize people or say that Evangelical conservatives all collectively hate women. But there is (to me) a very obvious intentional push coming from some parts of the political spectrum and from some Church leaders to eliminate any nuance or openness that those people have -- to get people to approach abortion though a very specific lens and to only ever acknowledge or think about that specific lens, because those leaders/politicians see it as a really convenient way to create an identity that requires people to vote/associate in a certain way, to demonize people who those leaders/politicians would like them to demonize, and to go even further and tie that political identity to people's religious security in a way that is inherently dangerous for them to question or examine. As a result, it then becomes easier for people to tie that religious identity to other political topics as well; the more that pro-life becomes shorthand for Christian, and the more that Christian becomes shorthand for "votes Republican", the easier it is to pick out other social/political issues (wealth inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, even entirely amoral, purely practical questions about things like economic policy), and to say that deviation from the expected party position is literally a sin and that non-party positions are guilty by association with the enemy. And again, definitely not all Evangelicals and absolutely not all Christians. I grew up in white Evangelical communities; I see their flaws and their occasional strengths. And regardless of the flaws I still care about people in that community. But it is a very concerning problem that the Church needs to grapple with; at some point something needs to break and white Evangelicals need to decide whether their primary identity is Christian or Republican.
tjs8rj 5y ago
“We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated.” I can’t find the quote, but someone said something like “democracy is the system of government where the stupid lead society” (implying that the majority of people are stupid, so rule by majority is rule by the stupid). I tend to agree a little, but every other system seems so much more dangerous (including trying to only let “smart people” make decisions).
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Reminds me of this clip[1] (trigger warning: R-word). Probably the worst feature of democracy is that morons vote for morons, and once they're the solid majority, we're doomed. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AeO-dKGBLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AeO-dKGBLs
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
> The middle class is getting absolutely hammered by taxes while the rich just keep on keeping on in a tax-free world not experienced by others. Define middle class. If you make >$250k but <$2M - you're probably getting hammered. But I don't think many people consider that "middle class". The ones with the highest tax rates by far make around $400-$600k. You don't have enough income for it to make sense to spend a lot of money to avoid taxes (accountants, tax lawyers, shielding income through corporations, etc) - and most of your income is "earned" from an employer - so you don't have many strategies to avoid taxes realistically anyway. You're pretty much stuck with a relatively high tax rate. But this is the top 1% - that doesn't seem middle class to me. If you make ~$100k - you're still in the top 15% - but your tax rate is really not THAT high. Middle class should probably center on FAMILIES earning between ~$40k and ~$100k. By no means are these FAMILIES being hammered with taxes - on the low end, you're looking at hardly any federal or state tax beside payroll (your pension).
- c22 5y ago
  40k is a full time minimum wage job where I live. Does the middle class really consist of just everyone who is fully employed?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    Minimum wage is ~$15k nationally. Also - IIUC - West Hollywood, CA voted for the highest minimum wage in the country, and it's lower than $40k. Where is minimum wage $40k?? Anyway - there's a lot of minimum wage workers who make below $40k - probably the majority make less than half that - many minimum wage workers do not work full-time. And, yes, considering how many single-parent HHs there are, and how many HHs with only 1 person on a small SS check - two working adults making minimum wage would be considered close to low end for middle class. Median HH income is $67k - meaning only 50% of HH make more than that. So the bar for middle class is obviously going to be lower than that. It's subjective - maybe your bar is at $50k? The tax rate is still quite low at that point (~14% with ~7% of that being your pension - SS & Medicare - even lower if this is a family instead of a single person - which, statistically, is likely). If this is considered hammered - I don't know how low people expect taxes should be, yet we still have a functioning society. And, regardless, you're getting significantly more hammered the more income you make until you're deep into the 1% and can afford to avoid taxes. The top 10% are not skimping out on taxes. People making >$5M are.
em500 5y ago
>> Bloomberg reports that the world’s richest 500 people have lost a total of $1 trillion this year. > I can't view the article, but aren't those "losses" likely to be paper losses, i.e., unrealized losses? Yup, these kind of articles are just padding. They're very cheap to write, and there's almost always "news" since stock prices always move. Most of the richest people (that we know of) hold the vast majority of their wealth in shares of public companies, so the richest got X-trillion richer/poorer in the past months/years is pretty much synonymous with the stock market went up/down by Y-%. You can probably write a script that fetches stock returns and autogenerates the article. Heck, someone at Bloomberg probably already did.
bobthechef 5y ago
ShockTohp 5y ago
>These reversions, due to in effect religious fundamentalism and pandering to what I only hope are minority crowds emboldened by gerrymandering and the electoral college, are concerning. The U.S. will continue to stagnate if all we ever discuss and rabble about are fringe issues. Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a tough issue no matter what, and so a compromised is needed. There will never be a totally clean solution. Why are people so damn concerned with decisions others make? In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated. RvW was a compromise that made both sides feel shafted, like most good compromises. The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this, not religious fundamentalism. For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder. For other places like California who have a more secular egalitarian leaning, and value choice over life, they feel as though being limited to before viability is too much restriction. RvW was always on shaky ground legally and morally speaking [1]. Making it a federal issue was always going to lead to this. States are different, some so different they might as well be separate countries. California, for example has already toyed with the idea of making abortion part of their state constitution. With Roe gone, it's much easier to do that, not harder. Acting like this was done out of a lack of education is reductive and pointless. The justices know what they are doing and what it means. Just because you happen to be against this particular decision does not make it wrong. Abortion rights are not going away, they are being given back to the states where they belonged in the first place. Activists on both sides will just have to deal with the fact that they can no longer dictate how the entire country lives, just because their local bubble agrees with them. [1]https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-wade-exploitation-mccorvey/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-wade-exploitation-mcco... [2]https://apnews.com/article/california-reproductive-rights-state-governments-fcfe3d2b24fe6fe502d01d72a891f1c6 https://apnews.com/article/california-reproductive-rights-st...
- pjc50 5y ago
  > Abortion rights are not going away Abortion rights are going away in some states. > In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated. .. as you've pointed out yourself. > The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this, There is no pro-abortion "extremism". There never has been anything comparable to the anti-abortion bombings. > For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder. Texas has the death penalty to show how much they value life.

by bmitc 5y ago

skizm 5y ago

> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a big issue that will continue to come up because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure. In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Abortion is a great example of an issue where the resolution of discourse isn't adequate to actually address the problem. It's not a binary yes/no question and biologically cannot be, but somehow people are stuck debating as if it is. In reality it is a matrix with time on one axis and extenuating circumstances on the other.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  How is it not binary? There's no reason to obfuscate the issue. All you need to do is to answer two questions: 1. Are human beings _human beings_ beginning with conception? 2. Is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being intentionally? W.r.t. (1), if you answer "no", then the second question is moot. It may still be the case that abortion would be morally illicit, but that would be a different question. If you answer "yes", then you must answer the second question. If you answer "yes", then you are a utilitarian/consequentialist. The conflict has largely shifted to the second question over time. (For the sake of clarity, the word "intentionally" is important. Treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother by removing the affected implanted tissue will result in the death of the unborn, but this is not an intended consequence, only a tolerable side effect given what's at stake. These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate.)
  - pjc50 5y ago
    > These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate They are unavoidably entangled with the abortion debate, because so many of the legislators and public are ignorant of such fine distinctions, and allowing a total abortion ban in the US _will_ result in maternal fatalities in these situations.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is a matrix specifically because many people answer no to #1 at conception but yes to #1 at a later date. Many people also answer yes to #2 based on circumstances, even if this means that they are utilitarians or consequentialists. Even the consideration of intent you mentioned adds at least one factor to the matrix.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I for one hope the Roe decision diffuses the abortion question in the long term. At least theoretically, having the decision state by state means more people can agree with their local legislation

triceratops 5y ago
In practice states do whatever they like, even if something is wildly unpopular with voters. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4#Implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_Amendment_4#Imple...
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I dont follow. Your link shows 65% support for the amendment. what am I missing?
  - triceratops 5y ago
    Read the section that I linked to specifically. The state's implementation ensured that in practice, most felons wouldn't have their voting rights restored because they hadn't paid fees and fines. And in many cases, had no way to know how much they owed. The idea of restoring voting rights was wildly popular (65% in favor) yet it didn't actually happen.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      OK, I see what you are getting at now. I was expecting to see something about the public support for the implementation where voting is contingent on paying fines.
eatonphil 5y ago
The senate minority leader already started talking about banning abortion across the entire US [0]. The states are gearing up to fight each other when they pass laws banning abortion for their citizens in other states like Texas either has done or is doing [1]. And on the other side you've got Connecticut allowing their citizens to counter-sue [2]. So no matter what side you're on it doesn't seem like it's about to be diffused. It seems like without federal law one way or the other states are going to be fighting each other. It sounds like chaos. Edit: Also, although it's tempting to think of "red" and "blue" states, the minority party in each state is humongous. Almost 40% of New York state voted for Trump in 2020 [3]. Desantis in Florida only won his election by 49% [4]! And a higher minority percentage in Mississippi voted for Biden in 2020 than minority in New York voted for Trump [5]. As much as it is easy to think of there being separate political halves of the US it's just not the case. There is huge Democrat and Republican presence in every state. [0] https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/ https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-natio... [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-roe-wade-abortion-adoptions/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/09/texas-republicans-ro... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/nyregion/connecticut-texas-abortion-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/nyregion/connecticut-texa... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_gubernatorial_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Florida_gubernatorial_ele... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

masklinn 5y ago

> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Because the GOP found that by making it a wedge issue they could have a reliable lock on the religious right.

danShumway 5y ago
It's impossible for me to over-stress how toxic the GOP has been to any kind of productive conversation about fetal rights as a concept and how transparently opportunistic they've been about using abortion as a means to preserve power, lock in voters, and push back on progressive policies in general. It makes it incredibly difficult to talk to many pro-life people about abortion in any context, because there's a huge effort happening to convince Evangelical voters that: A) literally any sympathy for the parent, nuance, or lack of ferver is the same as wanting the unborn to die. B) it's a primarily religious issue and that being an Evangelical means voting a certain way and aligning with a set of political issues, and that conversations about abortion must be approached through a religious lens. C) that because it's a religious issue, there is one singular "correct" way to focus on reducing abortion, and any deviation from that specific strategy is literally a religious failing. I see people just shut down during conversations about abortion, like even talking about it is itself a sin. ---- There is still a lot of nuance; I'm not trying to lump an entire group together or demonize people or say that Evangelical conservatives all collectively hate women. But there is (to me) a very obvious intentional push coming from some parts of the political spectrum and from some Church leaders to eliminate any nuance or openness that those people have -- to get people to approach abortion though a very specific lens and to only ever acknowledge or think about that specific lens, because those leaders/politicians see it as a really convenient way to create an identity that requires people to vote/associate in a certain way, to demonize people who those leaders/politicians would like them to demonize, and to go even further and tie that political identity to people's religious security in a way that is inherently dangerous for them to question or examine. As a result, it then becomes easier for people to tie that religious identity to other political topics as well; the more that pro-life becomes shorthand for Christian, and the more that Christian becomes shorthand for "votes Republican", the easier it is to pick out other social/political issues (wealth inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, even entirely amoral, purely practical questions about things like economic policy), and to say that deviation from the expected party position is literally a sin and that non-party positions are guilty by association with the enemy. And again, definitely not all Evangelicals and absolutely not all Christians. I grew up in white Evangelical communities; I see their flaws and their occasional strengths. And regardless of the flaws I still care about people in that community. But it is a very concerning problem that the Church needs to grapple with; at some point something needs to break and white Evangelicals need to decide whether their primary identity is Christian or Republican.

tjs8rj 5y ago

“We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated.” I can’t find the quote, but someone said something like “democracy is the system of government where the stupid lead society” (implying that the majority of people are stupid, so rule by majority is rule by the stupid). I tend to agree a little, but every other system seems so much more dangerous (including trying to only let “smart people” make decisions).

ryandrake 5y ago
Reminds me of this clip[1] (trigger warning: R-word). Probably the worst feature of democracy is that morons vote for morons, and once they're the solid majority, we're doomed. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AeO-dKGBLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AeO-dKGBLs

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

> The middle class is getting absolutely hammered by taxes while the rich just keep on keeping on in a tax-free world not experienced by others. Define middle class. If you make >$250k but <$2M - you're probably getting hammered. But I don't think many people consider that "middle class". The ones with the highest tax rates by far make around $400-$600k. You don't have enough income for it to make sense to spend a lot of money to avoid taxes (accountants, tax lawyers, shielding income through corporations, etc) - and most of your income is "earned" from an employer - so you don't have many strategies to avoid taxes realistically anyway. You're pretty much stuck with a relatively high tax rate. But this is the top 1% - that doesn't seem middle class to me. If you make ~$100k - you're still in the top 15% - but your tax rate is really not THAT high. Middle class should probably center on FAMILIES earning between ~$40k and ~$100k. By no means are these FAMILIES being hammered with taxes - on the low end, you're looking at hardly any federal or state tax beside payroll (your pension).

c22 5y ago
40k is a full time minimum wage job where I live. Does the middle class really consist of just everyone who is fully employed?
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Minimum wage is ~$15k nationally. Also - IIUC - West Hollywood, CA voted for the highest minimum wage in the country, and it's lower than $40k. Where is minimum wage $40k?? Anyway - there's a lot of minimum wage workers who make below $40k - probably the majority make less than half that - many minimum wage workers do not work full-time. And, yes, considering how many single-parent HHs there are, and how many HHs with only 1 person on a small SS check - two working adults making minimum wage would be considered close to low end for middle class. Median HH income is $67k - meaning only 50% of HH make more than that. So the bar for middle class is obviously going to be lower than that. It's subjective - maybe your bar is at $50k? The tax rate is still quite low at that point (~14% with ~7% of that being your pension - SS & Medicare - even lower if this is a family instead of a single person - which, statistically, is likely). If this is considered hammered - I don't know how low people expect taxes should be, yet we still have a functioning society. And, regardless, you're getting significantly more hammered the more income you make until you're deep into the 1% and can afford to avoid taxes. The top 10% are not skimping out on taxes. People making >$5M are.

em500 5y ago

>> Bloomberg reports that the world’s richest 500 people have lost a total of $1 trillion this year. > I can't view the article, but aren't those "losses" likely to be paper losses, i.e., unrealized losses? Yup, these kind of articles are just padding. They're very cheap to write, and there's almost always "news" since stock prices always move. Most of the richest people (that we know of) hold the vast majority of their wealth in shares of public companies, so the richest got X-trillion richer/poorer in the past months/years is pretty much synonymous with the stock market went up/down by Y-%. You can probably write a script that fetches stock returns and autogenerates the article. Heck, someone at Bloomberg probably already did.

bobthechef 5y ago

ShockTohp 5y ago

>These reversions, due to in effect religious fundamentalism and pandering to what I only hope are minority crowds emboldened by gerrymandering and the electoral college, are concerning. The U.S. will continue to stagnate if all we ever discuss and rabble about are fringe issues. Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a tough issue no matter what, and so a compromised is needed. There will never be a totally clean solution. Why are people so damn concerned with decisions others make? In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated. RvW was a compromise that made both sides feel shafted, like most good compromises. The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this, not religious fundamentalism. For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder. For other places like California who have a more secular egalitarian leaning, and value choice over life, they feel as though being limited to before viability is too much restriction. RvW was always on shaky ground legally and morally speaking [1]. Making it a federal issue was always going to lead to this. States are different, some so different they might as well be separate countries. California, for example has already toyed with the idea of making abortion part of their state constitution. With Roe gone, it's much easier to do that, not harder. Acting like this was done out of a lack of education is reductive and pointless. The justices know what they are doing and what it means. Just because you happen to be against this particular decision does not make it wrong. Abortion rights are not going away, they are being given back to the states where they belonged in the first place. Activists on both sides will just have to deal with the fact that they can no longer dictate how the entire country lives, just because their local bubble agrees with them. [1]https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-wade-exploitation-mccorvey/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/roe-v-wade-exploitation-mcco... [2]https://apnews.com/article/california-reproductive-rights-state-governments-fcfe3d2b24fe6fe502d01d72a891f1c6 https://apnews.com/article/california-reproductive-rights-st...

pjc50 5y ago
> Abortion rights are not going away Abortion rights are going away in some states. > In Texas, last time I looked, anybody can initiate a lawsuit against a doctor on abortion related issues, making doctors frozen due to legal worries and even reverting to communicating on paper notes that they then throw away. It's insane. We're taking decision making from the educated and giving it to the uneducated. .. as you've pointed out yourself. > The rise in extremism on both sides is fueling this, There is no pro-abortion "extremism". There never has been anything comparable to the anti-abortion bombings. > For states like Texas, where most people still hold to vaguely Christian values and new life is valued over choice, they feel like they are forced to allow murder. Texas has the death penalty to show how much they value life.