ChiGoose

A lot of people here seem to want a committee to release all of their evidence and testimony while still investigating, allowing parties to coordinate their testimony with what was already provided and obscure or outright hide the truth. Which is not how an investigative body would ever work.

Pharmacy denies woman medicine for miscarriage. Thankfully, she was able to get the medicine at another pharmacy.

I imagine you might be able to find a way to reach a common ground on the woman’s interest to privacy and autonomy, and the state’s interest in the baby’s life. Maybe in the first trimester, the woman can get an abortion; in the second trimester, it can be restricted based on criteria like health and viability; and in the third she could only get an abortion if the fetus was not viable or the woman’s life was in jeopardy. And you could use very clear language to differentiate out treatment for miscarriages or for other conditions that use some of the same medicines.

The article is quoting a rheumatologist saying they are already seeing this.

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

Rheumatologists seeing problems with getting patients methotrexate.

Oh, they definitely can. I just don’t think they will.

10 year old forced to travel out of state for abortion.

I think that this is a good point that highlights some of the nuance that seems to be getting missed. So far, we have seen testimony and audio of *reports* of AR-15s. While there is testimony that some weapons and body armor was confiscated, I haven’t seen confirmation that there were actually AR-15s present.

Fun fact: Lin Wood is a flat earther. If you hired Lin, Giuliani, Eastman, and Sidney Powell to argue you out of a $100 speeding ticket, you’d likely end up getting the death penalty.

Actually I got it from Trump, Giuliani, and Eastman. They were the ones talking about it.

GOP candidates are generally running on abortion bans while Dems are talking about codifying Roe into law. Is your point that voters do not care about the abortion issue?

I don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any cable news. I fully expect the GOP to win the House and think they'll probably take the Senate too. Polls have been indicating a bloodbath for some time. Some think Roe will change that, but I'm skeptical it will still be driving polls by the Fall and even if it does, it would only mitigate, not reverse, the GOP wins.

I am not predicting a Dem pickup in the Senate. It's currently a toss up with a slight edge to the GOP. That's why that part starts with the word "if." How changing the filibuster could impact bipartisanship: Frankly, I just don't think this is sustainable or good for the country: (Source)

I don't dislike the things Trump said and did because Trump said and did them, I dislike them because they were generally bad and/or dumb. If and when Trump actually does something good, I'll acknowledge it. I think Operation Warpspeed was one of the greatest endeavors in the last several decades and lays a blueprint for how we could address crisis in the future. At the start of his presidency, I actually turned on Twitter notification for Trump so I would know what he was up to since he personally managed his account (unlike most politicians). That, more than anything, shaped my thoughts about him. His own words. Not CNN or what reporters said he said, but what he was actually saying and tweeting

Congress, that thing we have from our democracy, passed laws to better our environment. Since congress is a legislative body, they are not in a position to oversee all of the regulations and enforcement. So Congress, that thing we have from our democracy, voted to have an agency enforce the laws that they, congress (that thing we have from our democracy) had passed. In our democracy, we have a congress, which writes the laws, and an executive branch, which executes them. We can debate about how much authority congress should delegate for rulemaking and enforcement, but congress passing laws and the executive branch enforcing them is literally how our democracy works.

Ignorance runs rampant in congress already. Creating incentives for them to actually *do* something might actually make them take measures to address our problems instead of spending all of their time grandstanding for the cameras. I do not understand your point about the cities and the electoral college. Even if they did away with the Electoral College (which they won't), that would just mean everyone gets one vote that counts just as much as everyone else's in presidential elections. The top 100 cities in the country only contain 20% of the population, clearly not enough for whatever the scenario you're outlining is. Part of the reason there was so much hatred from the beginning with Trump is that he's an ####### who acts like a dick and talks absolute nonsense that shows he has little idea about what he's talking about. He was never an outsider savior, he was always a grifting conman. Also, term limits would be the biggest win for the lobbyists you could ever imagine. If you think the biggest problem right now is that big moneyed insiders don't have enough influence in congress, then term limits is the solution for you. Ultimately, what we need is serious electoral reform so that we stop electing morons and #######, and if we do, we can hold them accountable and remove them from office.

Are you... rooting for pollution...?

Trump is an incompetent buffoon. He didn't need any help in screwing up. But he did manage to line his pockets and those of his friends and family, so he's got that going for him. Also, the idea that the party that is so inept that their legislative priorities are now on hold because an 82-year old needs hip surgery (not to mention a certain senator from California who probably doesn't even know who she is anymore) is somehow following a grand plot to destroy the country is laughable.

Typical liberal political correctness BS

Maybe Ginni isn't the only QAnon follower in the Thomas household...

Congress IS full of idiots.

That used to be my argument when friends said they wanted to get rid of the filibuster during the Obama administration. That they would regret it when the GOP took over. But at this point, we are so polarized, so divided into our "us vs them" two party camps, that there is zero incentive for senators of one party to do anything that might benefit the other. You could propose a bill that 80% of Americans support but you'd get few people from the other side to join you and reaching the 60 vote threshold, even on a popular bill, would be next to impossible. Congress doesn't actually legislate on anything important any more. There's just no incentive for them to cooperate. But all the American public sees is those bums in Washington not doing anything for the average American. So do away with the filibuster entirely. It will allow the parties to actually pass meaningful legislation AND it would make it very clear to the American public who is responsible for it. If the Dems somehow manage to pick up two senate seats in the Fall, they should immediately do away with the filibuster and pass the legislation they believe they were elected to enact. And if they overreach or don't do what the public wants, then the GOP will take over in 2024. And then the GOP can pass what it wants to pass with no obstruction from the Dems. And the voters can judge them on that. But in the current environment, so long as the filibuster stands, the senate will obstruct meaningful legislation from either party. And the public will blame everyone instead of those doing the obstruction. It's a recipe for nothing getting done and increasing division. [EDIT] Addendum: Removing the filibuster may actually create an incentive for bipartisanship. If the minority party knows that the majority party can pass any legislation it wants, then the minority party may be incentivized to be involved in the legislation to help shape it in a manner they find more acceptable. Currently, there is no incentive for this as the minority party can just block the legislation outright.

I used to think that too. Now I believe it’s too dangerous to keep the filibuster.

They constantly blabbed about it. They wouldn’t shut up about it, raised $200 million from gullible people on it, and tried to pressure Mike Pence to join in on it.