Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

How can they not benefit from it?

These "pissed off" young Democrats are the ones likley not to vote or write in somebody and with races being won at the margins it will benefit Republicans.

My real question is why are young democratic voters pissed off at moderates in the 1st place do moderate democratic not have the right to make their own decisions?

Moderate democratic voters saved us from 4 more years of Trump but somehow that's a bad thing?

Moderate Democrats are the reason we have a majority.

I just have to say it but those 2 come off as whiny entitled brats who don't know how government actually works and just want to be more woke than everybody and are regurgitating far-left talking points.

 

I think they are in a no-win position there is a larger gap in their voters than in the Republican party.

I mean Biden has gone further to the left than he ran on and most of the farther left is still upset.

And if you cater to the left you run the risk of alienating Hispanics and blacks who are more conservative, so like I said it's a juggling act and one the Republicans don't have to do.

 

That's fine, the markets will then determine the profitability. I am not sure what you mean by "forced" - entertainment has always put certain values on it's art from the very beginning of media. Not all content is good or bad, whether or not it has minorities, women or a bunch of white dudes.

I just don't get why people complain. If you need to see white people staring in movies, there's still a LOT.

 

Democrats are a bunch of p*****s. Feelings and understanding instead of execution and delivery.

Republicans are a bunch of small minded self-centered assholes. Sacrifice the greater good and tomorrow to stay in their safe little box today.

 

I tend to agree that some "inclusive" content is forced and isn't necessarily organic within the story. Probably even more seems like it was because it is new and sticks out more. So the perception is that it was forced into the story more than it actually was.

One of the greatest examples of the content coming organically to the story was Schitt's Creek. Probably the main storyline was about a same sex relationship. But I don't think it felt like it was in there to try and make a point or to pat themselves on the back and show off how accepting and tolerant they were.

It was all just a look at the world in which the characters lived. It always focused on the story itself rather than making the story secondary to breaking new ground with a same sex relationship.

So they accomplished showing tolerance, acceptance and breaking new ground. But they didn't sacrifice quality of the material to do it.

It didn't look like an after-school special about the content.

 

No Obama could not have codified Roe he does not have the power to do that.

He could not even get everything he wanted for the ACA.

Nobody and I mean nobody was thinking about codifying Roe there were a lot more important things happening during his 1st 2 years.

The real question is why are we even having this discussion and blaming people when we need to be talking about how we reverse this?

Ok if I say it's Obama's fault then what?

 

I agree with this but that's on both sides of the democratic spectrum Feelings and understanding are why Trump got elected in the 1st place.

Some Democrats felt some kind of way about Clinton instead of execution and delivery.

 

You aren't wrong.

By and large the politicians in both areas meet those definitions. They're all assholes, though.

 

@basso

 

None of this refutes my points.

Obama could not codify it on his own he can't make the congress vote on it and not all 60 senators would have voted for it.

It's like you think he can just make congress do what he wants.

Ok let's say he did have that power, why bring it up now what does that serve?

Why bring it up at this moment?

After some research it seems he never had the chance to sign the bill it never even got voted on in the house but yet its Obama's fault?

The bills were referred to the Judiciary Committees of the respective Houses. Neither bill received further action in the 108th Congress. The bills were reintroduced in the 110th Congress, but, like their predecessors, were referred to committee without further action. As of June 2009, the bills have not been introduced in the 111th Congress.

During his tenure in the United States Senate, Barack Obama co-sponsored the 2007 Senate version of the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama declared, "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."[4]

In a press conference on April 29, 2009, President Obama said that although he supports a woman's right to choose, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act was "not highest legislative priority".[5]

The craziest part is that Obama co sponsored the bill and ya'll still going in on him.

 

at 0:20 he says there will always be people, "many of good will," who will oppose abortion rights.

damn, he should have called them "deplorables." Maybe then he would have WON that election.

oh wait . . .

 

No, he did not have a super majority not everyone was voting lockstep on what he wanted.

Seriously he had a whole lot on his plate in 2009 did you just forget about the ACA and the recession?

And no they can't codify it with a simple majority and it was far down on the list of priorities IMO.

So let's just say it was his fault WTF does that have to do with now?

Why would that be top of mine to b**** about currently?

 

Willow's straight->lesbian turn seemed very organic in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. They were very rarely preachy about it (and in fact when Willow gets kind of preachy about it they make her look dumb because her friend group is very supportive it turns out).

 

What I am trying to say is that no matter what themes or characters you use, you are going to find stuff that is forced and bad, and stuff that is organic and good.

Do I like the preachy stuff? No. Of course not. It's bad. But c'mon, that stuff has been coming out there for decades and decades. If it wasn't about gay rights it was about some other issue.

 

Agreed. I think it's also a growing process. Writers aren't used to including that kind of content. So as they make an effort to be more realistic and representative, it's working an unfamiliar writing muscle. I think as it moves forward, it will seem less and less forced.