Whitmer says it would be ‘good’ if Biden talked about abortion more
Whitmer says it would be ‘good’ if Biden talked about abortion more
Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer suggested that President Biden should talk about abortion more so people know he is a president who is “fighting” for the right to an abortion.…
Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer suggested that President Biden should talk about abortion more so people know he is a president who is “fighting” for the right to an abortion.
Asked by CBS News “Face the Nation” anchor Margaret Brennan if Biden, who is of Catholic faith, needs to talk about abortion more, Whitmer said, “I think it would be good if he did.”
“I know that one tenet of his belief system is that women and only women at — with their families and — and health care professionals are the ones who know what decision is right for them,” said Whitmer, co-chair for Biden’s reelection campaign. “And that he is fighting and going to continue to fight to make sure that that is squarely the ability … [of] an American woman to make that decision.”
Brennan then asked if Biden needs to be the messenger on that more, to which Whitmer said, “I don’t think it would hurt.”
You're viewing a single thread.
But then voters might ask why Democrats haven't passed legislation guaranteeing access to abortion or reproductive health services in OVER FOURTY YEARS, during which they had super majorities more than once.
Start inviting questions you can't answer, and it's going to be a bad time for you.
Republicans will literally start hunting queer folks for sport and the white left is still going to find a reason why it means we should spend energy being mad at the Dems.
Maybe they should protect them. Or do you forget when a Democrat created "Don't ask, don't tell"? If you think they're innocent in all of this, you're deluded. I just happen to be old enough to remember their sins.
DADT was a huge achievement for gay rights.
I highly doubt you were old enough to remember or you wouldn't be shitting on it
Ah, yes, I forgot how awesome dishonorable discharge was for vets that served their country. I forgot how many killed themselves after being outed, or fearing being outed.
Sounds more like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you think Bill Clinton did nothing wrong, too. I've never met an open and proud neo lib before. Gross stuff.
Before DADT, the military would investigate suspected gay men like they were dangers to everyone around them. If you were a gay man, you couldn't even go to a gay bar while off duty because you might be being followed by MPs out to catch you doing gay shit.
DADT was a massive improvement and it doesn't deserve to be shit on just because you think it should have gone further.
DADT welcomed more violence and forced victims to remain silent. You're out of your mind on this one. The correct answer was to allow gay men and women to serve, without question and with The same protections all members of the military had.
Carrying water for homophobic policies is exactly the type of nonsense I expect from apologists that don't have their own standards or morals, though. I love it when this type of person jumps out from the woodwork to scold someone for actually having values worth standing up for.
It was also repealed by a Democrat, don't forget that.
And I actually was serving while DADT was a thing. Most of us on the Enlisted side rolled our eyes at it, because we thought it was dumb af to even have it at all. None of us (in my circle of friends anyhow) cared who wanted to bone who so long as it was all consensual.
I had a very close friend who was gay, and we served in Okinawa together. He actually came out TO his leadership to get his discharge because the mission over there was brutal on the workers (aircraft maintenance). Pretty much everyone knew he was, but leadership wouldn't make a move to kick anyone out unless you were actively like "Hey, I'm gay" straight to their face. And when he told his First Sergeant, the guy was like "Airman _____, are you sure you want to be telling me this?" Basically giving him an out to rethink.
He was a solid worker, just couldn't handle it anymore. And he was not dishonorably discharged. It's been a few years since I've heard from him, I should actually give him a holler and see what he's up to.
Anyhow, I say all that to be like, yes, DADT needed to be repealed, just like the trans ban needed to be repealed. But at the time, DADT really was setting the groundwork for many gay rights victories.
If you were actually serving, then you realize gay people were at extreme risk for being outed. Because if you were out that was considered telling which meant you were dishonorably discharged. So there was no relief from being caught by a fellow enlisted service person.
Back in the '90s I was commuting to Virginia for work. We used to go out in a Navy town and see all kinds of shows. In this particular town. There's a drag club that was very popular with some of the Navy guys, and wouldn't you know it? Every once in awhile someone would show up and everyone would panic and run away. They were desperately afraid of being caught and found out. Don't ask, don't tell. Did not fix that problem in any way shape or form.
The point we were originally talking about was protecting the right to abortion. Something that society has agreed for over 40 years should be a legal right, but nobody bothered to codify it in law. Just like the equal Rights amendment, it's ignored until it can be used as a cudgel to force people to vote a certain way. If Democrats actually passed legalized abortion on a national level anytime the last 40 years, two things would be true. One, we would not be in this situation. And two, they wouldn't have the ability to brow beat us against into electing shitty candidates just to eke out a win over other shittier candidates. Who knows, they might even put up a good candidate for once.
You mean that thing that happened because the white left didn't vote and let Republican majorities in both houses happen?
The white left and refusing to accept that the world won't just do revolution without their doing even the sliverest minimum to participate in the direction of politics beyond bitching, name a more iconic duo!
Sorry, this has been going on for over four decades. You don't get to just blanket, blame white left. It's the entire Democratic party, from the states to the FED.
What
He thinks inaction is beyond criticism.
Bullshit. They're simply saying that now probably isn't the best time for infighting. As Levitsky and Ziblatt show in their book, "How Democracies Die," a disunited and squabbling opposition is how authoritarian dictatorships come to power.
You can agree or not, but don't misrepresent the argument.
I'm not misrepresenting a damned thing. It's never "the time" to criticize the useless-on-purpose centrist inaction wing of the party. The last time centrists didn't get everything they wanted, they formed a PAC to elect McCain.
Here's the thing; we are trying to treat a figurative heart attack while you are bitching about a figurative cancer.
In medicine we have the concept of triage, wherein we treat the most immediately life-threatening issue first, and then, once the patient is stabilized, we move on to the next treatment.
What you are arguing in favor of is basically treating the cancer while ignoring the full pulmonary arrest that is happening right before your eyes.
What part about this do you not understand?
I don't get it. I truly don't.
Nothing about what you ultimately want will happen if you and I do not stand up together right fucking now.
The plane is about to crash into the fucking mountain and you want to bitch about your little fucking objections?
Really? That's who you are?
In medicine we have the concept of triage, wherein we treat the most immediately life-threatening issue first, and then, once the patient is stabilized, we move on to the next treatment.
Your analogy is worthless because we never move onto the next treatment.
What you are arguing in favor of is basically treating the cancer while ignoring the full pulmonary arrest that is happening right before your eyes.
What always happens is we treat the emergency and don't care at all if the patient's cancer gets worse. Ever.
The plane is about to crash into the fucking mountain and you want to bitch about your little fucking objections?
You regard literally anything that isn't "shut the fuck up forever and vote like we order you because anything you're upset about will never matter and we'll never do anything to fix it. I got literally everything I want, fuck you" with absolute contempt.
That's all you are.
you want to bitch about your little fucking objections
Buddy, we've been suffering since 2008. We've been patient. You can go fuck yourself.
I certainly hope that isn't the argument they're making. Because now is the exact time to make demands, especially from the left. Talking about student loan forgiveness is because of concessions that had to be made when Bernie Sanders dropped out. That's the same pathetic argument. The right makes whenever there's a mass shooting and someone wants to talk about gun control. It's the weakest most defeatist argument that could possibly be made because what that argument is saying is that your actual morals and politics don't matter. But they do.
You can in fact have it both ways. You can make demands and still not want some right-wing nut job to get in office. This argument is exactly why abortion has not been protected by law for well over 40 years, and it's why we're never going to see it protected by law in our lifetimes. People too afraid to upset the cart and make demands of the people they're going to elect.
Significantly more important than the presidency is all of the state elections. Without those politicians on board, the president can't do anything. Now is the exact time to demand any of those politicians wanting to be elected must agree that codifying abortion in law is a top priority. We're already seeing the effects of radical right-wing bullshit killing women because of lack of access, and I'm personally not willing to trade the lives of those women just to make some dipshit political organization happy.
They’re simply saying that now probably isn’t the best time for infighting.
Sorry. When was the appropriate time? Because when Democrat politicians are in a strong position they just give leftists the finger like they did when Obama was in office. They've created this adversarial relationship.
Who?
This is correct. The left is utterly incapable of unity on anything for the very good reason that unlike the right, it's a very loosely bound coalition in which each constituent interest group feels very little loyalty to the others. The result is that when we should be coming together to stop the fucking plane from crashing into the fucking mountain, we instead feel it necessary to trot out old internal grievances, back-stab, and in general form a circular firing-squad.
It's why the conservative minority in this country is about to turn us into a right-wing extremist autocratic shit hole even though we vastly outnumber them.
Democracies die when opposition fails to unite in the face of populist autocratic movements.
Alternatively, democracies thrive when people get fed up and demand change. Look at how opinions and even politics swung left after the barbaric, tragic killing of George Floyd. People should get angry about the fact it has been so long, women have gone unprotected nationally, and we as a nation have done nothing to protect abortion since Rowe. That should embarrass us as a nation.
While you are correct in one sense, you've also managed to completely miss the point in a way that to me seems deeply stupid, small-minded and idiotic.
I would ask you what part about my comment you didn't understand, but I can tell that the answer is "nothing," that you understood nothing, that you are utterly incapable of accurately rephrasing my argument, and that as such, you are a disappointing example of your sorry generation.
Lame. Absolutely lame stuff.
I would dispute your claim about there being a "circular firing squad." The firing definitely comes from a very specific direction. Politicians like Joe Biden run on progressive ideas (cancelling student loans, legalizing marijuana, healthcare reform, etc) and then all but drop those promises once they get into office. This is the real "backstabbing" in my opinion. These democratic politicians take massive donations from corporations, Israel, billionaires, etc. Who is going to get the most representation from these politicians? The voters or the donors? Four years later, liberals wonder why progressives aren't willing to jump in and vote for their guy again.
It's like a cycle. We get a blue wave thanks to young, minority, and progressive voter turnout, then those same voters become completely disillusioned after four years. Why? Personally I think it's because liberal (especially white middle class) voters subscribe to "vote blue no matter who," and it's been going on since well before Trump. They see the success of right wing candidates with total voter unity and think they can do the same thing with their superior numbers. However, these liberal voters get too invested with can we do this when they should be thinking about should we do this.
I personally think this mentality has given Democratic politicians a license to ignore their voters, because they essentially have a monopoly on votes from anyone who is not a crazy fascist. This in turn leads to the same repeated stalled progress and disillusionment. As long as Dems don't piss off their base too much, they can maintain this position forever while also providing a ton of value to their donors.
All of this has led me to believe that ranked choice voting may be the best thing we could do to turn our country around, because it would give third party candidates an actual shot and force Democrats (and maybe Republicans) to actually compete for votes because voters would feel more freedom to vote their conscience without pissing their vote away. If there are any initiatives in your state to put ranked choice on the ballot, please get involved.
50 years. Roe v Wade happened in '73
Fair enough, I'm older than I thought.
Easy answer, it's the carrot on the stick. They don't intend on you ever actually catching the carrot.
I don't disagree with how you feel about the Democrats, but anyone who was going to ask that question has already asked that question. Your standard-issue lib-dem is gonna get fired up hearing Democrats talk about abortion rights without thinking too hard about how we got here.
And why addressing it only comes up in election years?
Sadly the donor class doesn't hold the same values as the rest on the left, so politicians are rarely held to the standards they set. On both left and right in the US. That's how the right dupes poor people into thinking they'll get help and that help never comes.
That's how the right dupes poor people
This isn't exclusive to the right. Democrats do the same with promises of healthcare, education, wages, housing, and equality.