Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that — Mr Bee

Poor(er) countries have larger populations, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

I’m not stereotyping, nor do I consider the ruling class enemies. — Xtrix

Well, just who are you talking about. I think Roosevelt and the democrats of that era were part of the ruling class. With any class of people, you obviously have totally opposing views and not so much actual solidarity inside the class, let alone one agenda that everybody agrees to.

But this is going a bit off the topic...

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades. — Agent Smith

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that. — Mr Bee

Fertility rate goes actually down when people get more prosperous and the fertility rates have gone steadily gone down around the World. Abortion bans mean quite little, actually. Only something as crazy as ban on contraceptives might have an effect.

And anyway, this decision just separates the US states even more. I really doubt that California or Washington State would dramatically change their abortion laws now.

not so much actual solidarity inside the class — ssu

There was a concerted effort from the owners of the country, and they banded together very well indeed. One outline is given by Powell in his early 70s memo, literally laying out the strategy. Think tanks, lobbying groups like the US chamber of commerce/Business Roundtable, judicial programs like the federalist society, etc. All part of a real, conscious push against the Keynesian / New Deal programs.

True, it wasn’t 100% solidarity. No kidding.

Fertility rate goes actually down when people get more prosperous and the fertility rates have gone steadily gone down around the World. Abortion bans mean quite little, actually. Only something as crazy as ban on contraceptives might have an effect.

And anyway, this decision just separates the US states even more. I really doubt that California or Washington State would dramatically change their abortion laws now. — ssu

I dunno how fertility rates are calculated. If I'm correct it uses birth rates in the population and that in all likelihood ignores abortions and miscarriages that should appear in their very own categories. In other words, fertility rate ain't the whole story if you catch my drift.

True, it wasn’t 100% solidarity. No kidding. — Xtrix

Like in 1971 Nixon saying that he is now a Keynesian? When especially Keynesianism is one of the most successful economic schools of all time, the idea of Keynesianism/New Deal -thinkers vs. the elites just sounds a bit strange.

I dunno how fertility rates are calculated. If I'm correct it uses birth rates in the population and that in all likelihood ignores abortions and miscarriages that should appear in their very own categories. In other words, fertility rate ain't the whole story if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Let's put things into context: In the US in 2017, the abortion rate stood at 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women. Which means, as obviously someone can have more than 1 abortions, that lower than 1,35% percent of women have abortions. The fertility rate is an estimate the average number of children that a woman would have over her childbearing years (i.e. age 15-49), based on current birth trends. When the fertility rate in the US is 1,75, means that wome 15-49 have on average 1,75 children.
Something little under one fifth of women (18%) are childless, which means the vast majority of women do have children.

Hence the issue of population growth are depended on a lot of other things than abortions, which affected every 100th woman or so. And when some states will have legal abortions, the impact at least to issues like population growth is minimal if non-existent.

Like in 1971 Nixon saying that he is now a Keynesian? When especially Keynesianism is one of the most successful economic schools of all time, the idea of Keynesianism/New Deal -thinkers vs. the elites just sounds a bit strange. — ssu

Then you really haven’t looked into this much. There was, for decades, a powerful network of people who despised the New Deal efforts. Google the “Old Right.” Right from the beginning, in fact. Plenty of intellectuals against it as well— Mont Pelerin, etc.

Ask Powell and the Chamber of Commerce why they needed a blueprint for action if you find it “strange.” It’s not my claim.

I don't dispute there being an "Old Right". What I'm disputing is the idea that the Keynesians and those who pushed for the New Deal weren't part of the elite. They were, and are, also.

What I'm disputing is the idea that the Keynesians and those who pushed for the New Deal weren't part of the elite. — ssu

When did I claim otherwise?

When did I say there wasn't and Old Right ...or those who are against the New Deal? There are those even today

The shame of technocracy and one of the downfalls of the current system is that the Supreme Court ought to stay out of such decisions. This is why Roe was a mistake to begin with. A handful of judges chose to make abortion something like a federal right, so a handful of judges can take it away. Congress, the so-called representatives of the people, now get to walk around as if all of this isn’t their fault, and use the politics of it all to further their careers. They all know that such decisions ought to be made democratically, constitutionally amended, with long public debate and the involvement of many voters and legislators.

:up:

It definitely won't be an open question in 40 days or so.

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades.
— Agent Smith

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that. — Mr Bee

If the decision mostly affects single mother’s of very limited means, there should be a significant uptick in crime in the areas most affected in about 18 years.

Poor(er) countries have larger populations, oui monsieur/mademoiselle? — Agent Smith

That's too vague to really tell us anything. Given the specific points mentioned, I think it would all net out in the end (though thinking about it more, climate change would probably increase migration from poorer nations resulting in a net increase of people in places like the US and be a new issue for the country to divide itself on in the future I'm sure).

Indeed, there are multiple factors that contribute to population booms, and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is one of 'em. The US infrastructure should, well, buckle up for a turbulent 2030's.

Good point. The drop in crime that began in the late 1980s was (at least in part) a result of R vs. W. The unwanted children who were not born did not become problem youth.

As long as men get what they want, it doesn't really matter whether abortion is legal or not, right.

Both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance treat women the same way: as sex toilets for men. In the same way men use toilets to urinate and defecate, so they use women's vaginas to excrete semen.

And both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance train girls from early on to accept this order things, and to even be proud of it.

The best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool.

The drop in crime that began in the late 1980s was (at least in part) a result of R vs. W. The unwanted children who were not born did not become problem youth. — Bitter Crank

Yet the exploitative nature of the relationship between men and women never changed.

When did I say there wasn't and Old Right ...or those who are against the New Deal? There are those even today — ssu

Yes, and that’s who I was and am talking about. Corporate America. Since about 1971, there was a collective, deliberate push against New Deal policies and towards a neoliberal agenda— an agenda which has dominated since, to the point of becoming the “Washington Consensus.”

And your interjection is: “Well it’s not ALL elites.” Just a fatuous comment, really.

It's the world against , "The West", Christians, men, you name it.
, I suggest we all join you in a counter-strike, what say you? :smile:

Let's kill them! With kindness. — The Coach

IME, in light of this last week of wingnut rulings from SCOTUS, Biden and the Dems have no choice but to take these "emergency" actions asap (no later than August 1st, 2022) in the following sequence:
1A. By Executive Order of POTUS, issue permits to set up mobile abortion clinics on easily accessible federal lands in all states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed.

1B. CIC orders all miilitary bases, accessible to civilians, located in states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed, to immediately set up, within base hospital facilities, secure abortion clinics to be staffed by civilian abortion providers and open to both civilians and military personnel seeking reproductive healthcare.

2. Kill the US Senate's jim/jane crow Filibuster Rule.

3. Pass the Judiciary Act of 2021 which expands SCOTUS by four or more justices.
I think this achievable list constitutes a reasonable criterion by which to judge the political will and governing competence of POTUS and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. Are they antifascists or fucking collaborators? — 180 Proof

It's also clear that Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, & Loving should be codified

It's also clear that Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, & Loving should be codified — Maw

Yeah. Got to get rid of the filibuster rule first. :up:

Some useful stuff.

The Bible says nothing about abortion. So being anti-choice is a cultural and political decision, not a biblical one

More specific is Exodus 21:22–25 which imagines a scenario in which a pregnant woman is injured through her involvement (or perhaps her intervention) in a fight between two men. The Hebrew version of this passage is clear about priorities: if all that happens is the fetus is lost through miscarriage then the man who injured the woman should just pay a fine. In the world of Exodus 21, this is the equivalent to losing ox or a donkey: the money is to make up for lost earnings and so the fetus is regarded as property.

It's also clear that Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, & Loving should be codified — Maw

Yeah. Got to get rid of the filibuster rule first. :up: — 180 Proof

The problem with that is that it's relatively easy to overturn a law. Even if the Democrats are able to pass a federal law to protect these rights, when the Republicans are next the majority they'll just repeal it. Such rights need to be constitutional rights.

However, this seems a well reasoned reassurance:

Why Other Fundamental Rights Are Safe (At Least for Now)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It seemed to me that underlying Trump’s attempts to befriend Putin was an idea of bringing countries dominated by white people together. — ArielAssante

I think you're over estimating Trump's interest in anything beyond his own glory. He noted that Putin gave assistance to his campaign and thought that meant Putin liked him.

Are they antifascists or fucking collaborators? — 180 Proof

They are politicians, and Disraeli was right when he said that in politics there is no honor, so I'm not certain what they'll do. They'll do what seems to benefit them politically. These suggestions might.

Not until they have a president who will not veto the repeal.

:up:

This is the guy who is going to save your abortion rights:



There's also that time he proudly browbeat and ruined Clarence Thomas' sexual assult victim - Anita Hill - in congress so he could assure him a spot on the supreme court.

Was gonna make a joke about how annoying it must be to vote for democrats only to end up with republicans but no, this kind of thing is democrat through and through and has always been - as reflected by this guy's decades long career as a democrat.