the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Serious question. We have graft and grift, we’re bankrupt and can’t fund retirement for most Americans (nor healthcare). Does the fiscally Conservative party going down the path of extreme unpopularity by banning things like birth control help us as a nation?

Letter of the law I agree with you, the constitution doesn’t make birth control a rigjt. But damn man, is drinking a right? Is smoking a cigarette a right? Is having a children a right? We assume many things based on our collective conscience as a nation, and I would posit that drinking and cigarette smoking should be illegal before birth control. The constitution not being explicit on those topics doesn’t really change much.

I understand that. I was thinking if abortion is constitutionally protected because of a right to privacy, why not drug use at home as a right to privacy?

Drinking and smoking likewise are not constitutionally protected.

Not everything can or should be in the constitution, and it bothers me when lawyers try that hard to fit something like abortion into it like it's always been there. They're good at it but the reasoning is so flawed it can be easily overturned, like today.

[Kaveh]

Drinking was later addressed after prohibition. And I was trying to make a point that that’s how this will go. This will be deeply unpopular and for no reason, abortion was already basically illegally in lots of the country due to lack of access. Now republicans will have to own these decisions and the country will continue to accrue debt and have no “conservative” party as a result

Bad politics imo

[Kaveh]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm being snarky with the universe.

I strongly believe nothing is going to make people move to renewable energy except the free market.

Only these guys will try to force it:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nuclear is the best option we have right now. Germany and California are both finding that out

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and here we are stuck trying to untangle patriarchy all these years later while a bunch of rich dudes try real hard to put it all back together

This is what happens when you get your balls clipped, folks. You dye your hair and start screeching about Patriarchy, bend over and spell R U N

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Mblake1981 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It isn't just rich dudes, I also don't like gay men trying to push their dicks around in the name of ladies.

Sure, but you're an idiot

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure, but you're an idiot

Coming from you that isn't a cut down.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EVs are as good as the grid they’re based on. If we didn’t have opposition to nuclear energy, they would absolutely reduce hydrocarbon emissions

Totally agree.

I do believe EVs are the future, and it would be SO glorious to remove ourselves from that Russian and Middle Eastern yoke. In the U.S. we have the capability to completely free ourselves from them but there's too much pressure to keep our refining low, both market and political pressure.

Nuclear energy is the clear path to this, along with massive investment in the infrastructure needed to support these EVs, but again nuclear energy faces strong opposition. These progressives think the future is solar panels and wind energy everywhere, not understanding that it also requires massive battery infrastructure to store the energy to use when needed and not just during a sunny day.

It's coming in time. I'm in my mid 40s and expect to see a significant shift to EVs in my natural lifetime, but these stupid progressives think it's like flipping a switch and that these current high gas prices are the catalyst.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nuclear is the best option we have right now. Germany and California are both finding that out

We have already gone through this in America from start to finish.



All you're saying is, that they lied to us for 50 years, and the free market is starting to push back and take control again, like it almost did 50 years ago.

It's just like they are lying to us now about being able to move to renewable energy before we are capable of it.

In 50 years we'll find out the entire dialogue was COMPLETELY WRONG... just like the entire dialogue about Nuclear power.

We're on a treadmill.

[Mblake1981]

They were afraid of people cutting-corners with safety after harnessing the power of our Sun.

p/s, Jane Fonda was a commie during these years iirc. Hanoi Jane

Who is Jane Fonda? This is a question often asked by many people with no one right answer. She is an actress, a fitness guru, a former communist sympathizer, and most importantly, an antiwar activist during the Vietnam War.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Drinking was later addressed after prohibition. And I was trying to make a point that that’s how this will go. This will be deeply unpopular and for no reason, abortion was already basically illegally in lots of the country due to lack of access. Now republicans will have to own these decisions and the country will continue to accrue debt and have no “conservative” party as a result

Bad politics imo

But Supreme Court decisions should never be about politics. That's called legislating from the bench, which is basically this:

“Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law.

Their decisions should be based on a basic question: Is it in the constitution, not in the constitution, or do we have to jump through hoops and create dubious interpretations to pretend it's in the constitution to fit a political agenda?

Like the decision to overturn NY's concealed carry law: Even though it might be more popular to confirm the law based on modern society's firearms being way more destructive than the muskets of the 1700s and our declining society's propensity for mass shootings, it wouldn't be a proper interpretation of the constitution. It says clear as day "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I know dumbass Biden said the decision to overturn that law isn't constitutional but it so clearly is constitutional.

We are living in interesting times.