Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
This one got ingnored for Ohio that happened the post after, which is pretty bad as well but....
Seriously, what the fucking fuck united states, what the fucking.....
I just
At this point I need a very compelling reason to even bother trying to stick it out until 2020. :/
Oh, bother.
Remember this is a country where some places still allow for things like faith healing and other horrendously dangerously bass-ackwards bullshit.
And individual judges can and do make some really, really stupid and offensive calls. Like that one guy who went easy on a college rapist. Or the late Antonin Scalia whom we have to "thank" for the Second Amendment being the biggest hurdle for gun control.
Edited by M84 on Nov 22nd 2018 at 4:34:08 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
This is something that fucks some one up physically for life, with no way to fix it.
And it was just approved of at a federal level.
Thats a bit beyond those kinds of things.
Federalism struck again. Unlike in say Switzerland, in the US criminal law is a state matter except in particular circumstances (e.g terrorism, crimes involving mail, crimes with inter-state or inter-national repercussions), and FGM does not fall under "particular circumstances". For what it's worth some US states have laws against FGM and others don't.
By the by, regarding Utah it seems like their anti-gerrymandering initiative has passed by a hair.
Oh, bother.
It's less "approved of at a federal level" and more "this isn't something the FBI should be handling".
Edited by M84 on Nov 22nd 2018 at 4:38:44 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
So then under US law, it is 100% okay for a state to make a law saying that you can slice some one up with a knife.
Because bodily mutilation sounds like something that is the jurisdiction of the federal government.
And lets not mince words here, that is exactly what this is, it is like if the feds just said that is 100% okay for states to legalize the removal of men's penises.
Edited by Imca on Nov 21st 2018 at 12:52:38 PM
I am not going to mince words: I think you totally misunderstood what I said.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
No I have not, because what you have said is that by the United States system, whether or not causing permanent bodily harm to some one is a crime is a state level issue.
and that is 100% what FGM is equivalent too, removing a mans dick, so like apperntly its up to the states whethe or not taking a knife to some one is a crime?
Thats makes this even more fucked up.
Yeah, I am with Imca on that one. If that is the United States system then the system is shit and should be changed.
Like, maybe every state should have its own law regarding this. But it is nonsensical to just dismiss the existing law and let the culprit go free.
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
It's more of a philosophy of the divestment of power between State and Federal.
The Federal Government is only doing crimes that are too big for States, usually but not exclusively because they are beyond state borders.
Mutilation, as heinous as is, is not something that fits that legal definition and thus ought, under the letter of the law, be up to the States.
Of course, this could be changed but this requires Congress to do it, the Judiciary cannot do that. And if the law on question is wrongfully laid down, it is the Judiciary's job to deal with that.
I note, the Judge was disgusted themselves but to uphold it despite how the division of powers work because of that, that would be judicial overreach.
Edited by 3of4 on Nov 21st 2018 at 10:39:41 AM
"You can reply to this Message!"
Figure of Hourai
Mind, there is a counter-argument at play here—that because this is illegal in various states and involves secretive arrangements across state boundaries, it is a form of inter-state commerce and would thus be something that could be regulated at the federal level.
Avatar Source
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
Of course, but to create that regulation would be up to Congress and since the Judge was - from what I remember of the statement - clearly disgusted by the practice, I guess the 30 year-old law wasn't textually up for that.
"You can reply to this Message!"
So, what exactly can be done to criminalize female genital mutilation?
It's one thing to make a spectacle. It's another to make a difference.
A procrastination in of itself
Pass laws at a state level doing it, which theoretically should be easy, except I’m sure that there’s going to turn out to be a tiny religious movement in at lest one state that has a thing for mutilating children’s genitalia and also has a ton of influence over the state government.
So it’ll probably end up illegal in 49 states or something.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Quoth Marq FJA:
... Now there's an idea. Make a law that punishes with death anyone who is convicted of knowingly proposing and passing legislation that seeks to cause the deliberate killing of people for no possible reason other than racism, sexism or some other form of discrimination. Let's see how many of those scumbags try that BS again afterwards.
Maybe they should attach to every suggestion to tighten abortion rules a bill which allots money to an organisation which helps young mothers and those who just can't afford another child.
I would understand their opposition to abortion as a method of birth control if we had way, way better and cheaper prenatal and pregnancy care, federally mandated maternity and paternity leave, and much better support for adoption services. But we have literally none of those things. Also, talking about the death penalty for women who get one almost feels like a trolling tactic- they have to know there's no way in God's green Earth that's happening, so they're just doing it to get people talking.
Lost in Space
Opposition to abortion is based on a fundamental, underlying social paradigm wherein women are the property of men: walking wombs who double as homemakers. In this model, women have no basic rights as independent humans with their own choices and desires.
It's not all phrased in that manner, but that's what it comes down to in the end. Now, some "compassionate" abortion opponents recognize that in order to not be absolute hypocrites, they must also offer pre- and post-natal care for women, contraception/birth control, sex education, rape prevention and counseling, family coaching, adoption services, child support, and so on. But that's too complicated for most of them, and it inherently recognizes women as "real people" rather than baby factories.
Edited to add: Given a choice, I'd rather see a pregnancy come to term than be aborted. The idea of ending a potential human life is tragic, never more so than for the mother who is faced with that choice. But I'd never dare tell someone in that position that they don't have the right to make it.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 21st 2018 at 8:28:16 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
I feel we are straying close to one of the forbidden topics...
"You can reply to this Message!"
Did anyone bring up the story yesterday that Trump wanted to prosecute Comey and Clinton? It's yet another example of Trump testing the boundaries of what he's allowed to do, and the president weaponizing the defense department against political opponents is something dictators do. Good news, Mueller's got even more to work with now.
Edited by speedyboris on Nov 21st 2018 at 8:40:52 AM
The Mueller investigation seems to have lost traction as of late, it seems like all the big names (involved in the administration) were just caught early.
So do pro-life groups only see women as baby factories or is that an obvious hyperbole? You seem to be saying both in different paragraphs. Former senate democratic leader Harry Reid was opposed to abortion and you can't claim he didn't see women as equals.
Edited by Grafite on Nov 21st 2018 at 2:52:27 PM
Life is unfair...
Sounds like hyperbole. Some people I've met that are opposed to abortion just don't like the idea of taking a life, albeit an undeveloped one.
Mueller has been quiet (due to the midterm election campaign, and because this stuff takes time), not idle.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Bodily autonomy.
Did you know that if a person was dying and desperately needed a kidney, the law could not compel me to donate mine? Every part of my body is legally considered to be my property. It could be a three-year-old child on that operating bed, and I still have a legal right to say, "Let him die. My kidney belongs to me."
In fact, if I so choose, even when I die, I can demand that my potentially life-saving kidney be left in the ground to rot with me and no one can say a thing about it. The same is true of my liver, heart, and other potentially life-saving organs. I have a legal right to let other people die to preserve my bodily autonomy.
Why should a womb be any different?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 21st 2018 at 8:03:17 AM
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Mia Love is Haitian-American, not African-American in the sense that we normally use the term.
As for Utah in general, it's deep red but even a deep red state has a couple of blue points and Mia Love's district contained one such point. That and it was a very suburban district, and suburbanites in the midterms didn't give Trump much love. I figure that ~Bense might be able to explain Utah's politics better.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman