Told you so.

[AngryCanadian]

Time to end women’s sufferage.

Thinking with their lips and that’s it.

Bigger problems in the world than abortion access. There are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, killing the baby is a piss poor decision.

Most women who support abortion comes from unmarried women.

Women who are married and have families are likely less to support.

[oyarde]

Proud to be a Hoosier today . Not one single pro life GOP incumbent in state house or state senate lost a race to the dems even though they spent a bunch of money on the Dems abortion anger thing in urban areas. Dems should leave for illinois. Nice to know that in a $#@!hole country of retards who half or more think it is acceptable to kill babies as birth control that the majority in my state have some value on life.

[Anti Federalist]

[Brian4Liberty]

Savage vs. Levin. Levin has always been the teocon tool.

Levin says it had nothing to do with abortion.

[Brian4Liberty]

Savage vs. Levin. Levin has always been the teocon tool.

Levin says it had nothing to do with abortion.

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1590375727592984576

[Brian4Liberty]

As if any more evidence is needed to know who the real enemies are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLscQvbH-s

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1590375727592984576

+rep

[nobody's_hero]

Let me ask you guys something:

If overturning RvW and returning it to the states as prescribed in the Constitution is what costed the republicans seats, does that indicate that 'we shouldn't be doing these things' or 'it's going to be unpopular'? Or should the 'or' be an 'and'?

Imagine if Ron Paul had gotten into office and done the same thing purely on constitutional grounds. Would we be bemoaning the recklessness of it all? My God, what if he had abolished the federal reserve? Imagine the short-term pain that would have caused and the electoral backlash which would've ensued. Should we just avoid issues that are unpopular, even if they are the correct thing to do?

Now, I will admit there were people like Graham who tried to push it too far as to say it should be banned at the federal level, which is as much a violation of the 10th amendment as legalizing it at the federal level. But the media had already pretty much decided that they were gonna run the narrative that the 'republicans are gonna take away yer rights!' well before RvW's overturn was even decided.

[ClaytonB]

Let me ask you guys something:

If overturning RvW and returning it to the states as prescribed in the Constitution is what costed the republicans seats, does that indicate that 'we shouldn't be doing these things' or 'it's going to be unpopular'. Or should the 'or' be an 'and'.

Imagine if Ron Paul had gotten into office and done the same thing purely on constitutional grounds. Would we be bemoaning the recklessness of it all? My God, what if he had abolished the federal reserve? Imagine the short-term pain that would have caused and the electoral backlash which would've ensued. Should we just avoid issues that are unpopular, even if they are the correct thing to do?

Now, I will admit there were people like Graham who tried to push it too far as to say it should be banned at the federal level, which is as much a violation of the 10th amendment as legalizing it at the federal level. But the media had already pretty much decided that they were gonna run the narrative that the 'republicans are gonna take away yer rights!' well before RvW's overturn was even decided.

^^^ THIS

The mid-terms were not a tactical error on the part of the GOP, nor the result of tactical brilliance from the Dems. Making this a tactical issue plays into the hands of the deep-politics globalists, because they want to sweep this 2.5 year long global crisis they created called The Doomsday Virus under the rug. Oh, you already forgot about the Doomsday Virus? Remember when they shuttered half the economy and put the nation under de facto house arrest, including closing schools? For more than two years. You already forgot about that?! Well, maybe their tactics are more effective than I'm giving them credit for...

2022 was not a tactical mistake. It is clear evidence that the national GOP leadership is utterly impenitent in its rabid devotion to neoCON-flavored Marxism and globalist oppression of Americans through ram-rodded bipartisan political action at the Federal level. And they still hold the reins of the party. 2022 was an indictment of the GOP itself. As if we needed another one...

[acptulsa]

[Madison320]

I don't think that's accurate. Looking at his record and looking at his speeches, etc. what I think Trump believes in is classic America... America in its heyday. Whether that be bigger or smaller government, I don't think Trump has any preconceived opinion on that. But it's looking more and more like it doesn't really matter anymore what Trump thinks or says. So, it's a waste of time to ecven debate it...

I thought you were an anarchist?

I'm at the point now where I don't even care. I only care about how it's going to affect my investments. Since both parties are committed to unlimited spending my investment strategy is still inflation based. At this point the only thing that's going to stop the spending is hyperinflation.

[Anti Federalist]

Let me ask you guys something:

If overturning RvW and returning it to the states as prescribed in the Constitution is what costed the republicans seats, does that indicate that 'we shouldn't be doing these things' or 'it's going to be unpopular'? Or should the 'or' be an 'and'?

Imagine if Ron Paul had gotten into office and done the same thing purely on constitutional grounds. Would we be bemoaning the recklessness of it all? My God, what if he had abolished the federal reserve? Imagine the short-term pain that would have caused and the electoral backlash which would've ensued. Should we just avoid issues that are unpopular, even if they are the correct thing to do?

Now, I will admit there were people like Graham who tried to push it too far as to say it should be banned at the federal level, which is as much a violation of the 10th amendment as legalizing it at the federal level. But the media had already pretty much decided that they were gonna run the narrative that the 'republicans are gonna take away yer rights!' well before RvW's overturn was even decided.

Let me make a couple of things clear from my PoV:

1 - Roe was bad law and needed to be overturned.

2 - I had no doubt in my mind that it would be an "unpopular" move, and probably counterproductive, in that it will result in even more Draconian abortion law, for instance, Montana, of all places, failing to pass a law requiring that doctors give care to born alive infants.

3 - GOP leadership failed, yet again, to mitigate and take appropriate action on this, instead, deciding to believe the poll numbers that said abortion was no big deal, when it was.

4 - We are constantly admonished to "believe the science". Very well...science determines when life ends with no problem, the same parameters must apply to when life begins, non? Heartbeat, brainwaves and pulse are detectable at 12-15 weeks in a healthy fetus. That is a life, and it's life cannot be snuffed out without just cause and due process being applied. Period.

5 - Ron would have been utterly eaten alive by the jackals in the Marxist media organs.

6 - Loafers Gramnesty is traitorous swine.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let me ask you guys something:

If overturning RvW and returning it to the states as prescribed in the Constitution is what costed the republicans seats, does that indicate that 'we shouldn't be doing these things' or 'it's going to be unpopular'? Or should the 'or' be an 'and'?

That is the question, isn't it? On principle, reversing Roe was the correct judicial decision. Is the timing of such a verdict important? Who decides on the timing? What are the motivations?

Granted, there are elections every two years, so it's hard to avoid those. Thus, the best time for a controversial ruling would be right after an election, not a couple of months before.

Imagine if Ron Paul had gotten into office and done the same thing purely on constitutional grounds. Would we be bemoaning the recklessness of it all?

I'm not sure how a President could reverse a Supreme Court ruling (like Roe V Wade). Congress can pass laws, and a President can back a certain law. They can use the bully pulpit to encourage the Supreme Court. They can also veto laws. Would Ron Paul as POTUS say "Roe V Wade has been rightfully reversed and the matter now resides where it belongs, with the states. I will also veto any Federal laws regarding this issue, in line with the 10th Amendment"?

My God, what if he had abolished the federal reserve? Imagine the short-term pain that would have caused and the electoral backlash which would've ensued. Should we just avoid issues that are unpopular, even if they are the correct thing to do?

By executive fiat? Not sure how that would work either. He could certainly back legislation that would result in auditing and/or abolishing the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, it would probably also result in the death, one way or another, of the President.

Now, I will admit there were people like Graham who tried to push it too far as to say it should be banned at the federal level, which is as much a violation of the 10th amendment as legalizing it at the federal level. But the media had already pretty much decided that they were gonna run the narrative that the 'republicans are gonna take away yer rights!' well before RvW's overturn was even decided.

Ever notice how whenever the media needs a narrative, either an example of "right-wing extremism" or "bipartisanship", Lindsey Graham is always right there to oblige?

[ClaytonB]

I thought you were an anarchist?

Politically, I'm a few different things at once... that's not my fault, it's the result of the fact that we're in Clown World.

From the standpoint of basic common-sense, I'm a philosophical anarchist -- you and I both know that no strongman in a funny-hat can thereby confer a "divine right" upon himself to bark orders at other human beings. Funny-hat or not, everybody poops. Get over yourself.

From the standpoint of faith, I am a Christian anarchist/monarchist. I say "anarchist/monarchist" because it's a duality -- John 8:36 says, "If the Son (king) sets you free, you are free indeed." To be truly free in the broadest possible sense of eudaimonic flourishing, we must be set free by the King of Creation, that is, Jesus. That's a freedom that is bigger than anything that any secular philosopher or libertarian has ever imagined and, therefore, it's preferable. Some consider it a fairy-tale. Others have faith and believe in the age to come.

From the standpoint of being a parent, I just want to minimize the amount of damage and suffering that will be imposed on my children as they become adults and enter Clown World, which is filled with psychotic tyrants juggling knives and nukes and extorting/scamming/conning each new generation in direct proportion to its indoctrinated faith in the omnipotent-State. I can't put my finger on what is the best strategy to achieve this because, well, we're in Clown World. But I am a flesh-eating, blood-sucking pragmatist on this point -- I don't give a damn about your ideals, the world is what it is, Clowns and all. So I will calculate that for what it is, and respond accordingly.

I'm at the point now where I don't even care. I only care about how it's going to affect my investments. Since both parties are committed to unlimited spending my investment strategy is still inflation based. At this point the only thing that's going to stop the spending is hyperinflation.

Money is a big part of it. The Clowns are using money as a means to siphon away almost all the fruits of the productive effort of the modern world. A typical modern full-time worker is easily 100 times as productive as a typical worker 100 years ago, all things considered. I won't bore the thread with an enumeration of all the changes responsible for this but jet-liners, CNC machines, PCs, the Internet, smartphones, 3D-printers, and so on, should be enough to give the general gist of things. A problem that would have stopped an entire manufacturing line and required bringing in a trained expert when his calendar next permitted can now be solved with a quick web-search. The amplification of productivity resulting from just this one aspect of modern life, vis-a-vis life 100 years ago, is enormous. 3 days of down time versus 15 minutes. In such a case, the productivity amplification is at least (3x8) / 0.25 = 96. And when the technician that gets called ends up over his head, the same thing. Instead of having to return the next day after going back to the shop and looking through the repair manuals, he can just web search on his smartphone, and done. And so on, and so forth, all across the economy, every day, all day long, day-after-day, year-in, year-out. But is the modern worker living at a standard-of-living that is 100 times greater? "He has a smartphone!" Don't be ridiculous... in real terms, is he living 100 times better off? Did the general prosperity of the typical worker move up along a scale and become comparable to those who were earning 100 times above average, 100 years ago? Of course not. So, while marxist economics is a bunch of voodoo BS, Marx himself was absolutely correct -- the "surplus value of labor" is, indeed, being siphoned away by the capitalists. It's just that the capitalists happen to be out-and-out crooks, so their criminality is much more relevant to what is happening than their capitalist beliefs...

[susano]

I thought you were an anarchist?

I'm at the point now where I don't even care. I only care about how it's going to affect my investments. Since both parties are committed to unlimited spending my investment strategy is still inflation based. At this point the only thing that's going to stop the spending is hyperinflation.

What is that strategy, if you don't mind my asking?

[Madison320]

What is that strategy, if you don't mind my asking?

Companies with high dividends that make stuff we need. Foreign companies. PMs and mining stocks.

[susano]

The good part about this (reversal of Roe) is that it's now water over the dam. It's back in the hands of the states. Attempts by radical feminists to get some kind of national legislation will go nowhere because of the decision that it's a state issue. This should take the issue's impact out of federal races and whatever fights take place will be at the state level.

I think it's next to impossible to determine what the impact of this was. Mail in ballots are a far greater culprit, imo.

[susano]

Companies with high dividends that make stuff we need. Foreign companies. PMs and mining stocks.

Why foreign companies?

[Madison320]

From the standpoint of basic common-sense, I'm a philosophical anarchist -- you and I both know that no strongman in a funny-hat can thereby confer a "divine right" upon himself to bark orders at other human beings. Funny-hat or not, everybody poops. Get over yourself.

The reason I ask is that you don't seem to worried about the size of government. I would think that would be at the top of the list for an anarchist.

I'm a minarchist and I think the size of government is by far the biggest problem for us. We need to elect leaders who will reduce spending, at this point even slowing the rate of increase would be an improvement.

[TheTexan]

Money is a big part of it. The Clowns are using money as a means to siphon away almost all the fruits of the productive effort of the modern world. A typical modern full-time worker is easily 100 times as productive as a typical worker 100 years ago, all things considered.

Yep, as productivity has increased, so has the number of parasites, thieves, and grifters, with 10 of them sapping wealth, for every 1 person doing honest work

[Madison320]

Why foreign companies?

I guess the idea is if the dollar loses value in relation to other currencies, foreign stocks will go up, even if their local price doesn't.

Another reason is most of the high dividend low pe stocks are foreign. Also for diversity. I think if you're a us citizen you're already invested in the US, Social security and medicare for example. So if I'm wrong and the US does well at least I'll still be getting my ss check. But if the US fails at least I'll have my foreign assets.

The problem is all this inflation has been bad for my inflation hedges.

[susano]

I guess the idea is if the dollar loses value in relation to other currencies, foreign stocks will go up, even if their local price doesn't.

Another reason is most of the high dividend low pe stocks are foreign. Also for diversity. I think if you're a us citizen you're already invested in the US, Social security and medicare for example. So if I'm wrong and the US does well at least I'll still be getting my ss check. But if the US fails at least I'll have my foreign assets.

The problem is all this inflation has been bad for my inflation hedges.

I know nothing about investing. Are dividends when you receive periodic payouts vs gains that are, I guess, just plowed back into whatever funds one is invested in?
How are you doing with your strategy?

[Madison320]

I know nothing about investing. Are dividends when you receive periodic payouts vs gains that are, I guess, just plowed back into whatever funds one is invested in?
How are you doing with your strategy?

Yup. And usually if a company is paying dividends, that means they are making a profit. My theory is high dividend paying companies are more likely to be a "real" business.

I've lost money like everyone else but I think I've lost less than the average. I'm down about 10%. But I feel more secure knowing I own real companies that make real things like cars and oil and food. Compared to dotcom companies that just have a website.

[ClaytonB]

The reason I ask is that you don't seem to worried about the size of government. I would think that would be at the top of the list for an anarchist.

I'm a minarchist and I think the size of government is by far the biggest problem for us. We need to elect leaders who will reduce spending, at this point even slowing the rate of increase would be an improvement.

While I agree that size of government is a problem, I think that most people don't understand why it's a problem (and I don't think most of them ever really will) and so focusing on the size-in-itself allows the Establishment to redirect from the real problems (which are all fundamental moral evils) to technical disputes about how many departments we should have and what their headcounts should be. What the Fed does is armed-robbery -- it is evil. The IRS facilitates the Fed and is a creature of the illegally passed 16th-amendment and, therefore, what it does is evil. The headcount of the IRS is irrelevant to its evilness. But the Repugs-Demoncrats love to have a debate over whether there should be 87,000 IRS agents or some other number. That gives them something to talk about besides the evil-ness of what the IRS/Fed/etc. do. That's a discussion they never tolerate on the big-microphone, ever. Not even one syllable of discussion is permitted. Ron Paul is one of the few rare exceptions and we see how they stymied him throughout his whole career.

There are the moral issues, and there are the tactical political calculations, and then there is a third factor which Machiavelli called virtu but in English we would call strength or might. Whether you loved him or hated him, the one thing that Trump definitely had was strength -- he had a powerful movement and people were excited by him and turned out in massive numbers. It's debatable whether Trump has a moral compass and his tactical political calculations were often incorrect. At some point, whether with Trump or someone else, we need to get all three legs of that 3-legged stool under a movement for liberty. With enough strength, questions of "size of government" quickly become irrelevant because, if I can turn out super-majorities of the US public in support of my movement, I can just dissolve your agency and fire everyone without ceremony. This was the mostly unstated implication behind MAGA... we're building a huge movement that has enough strength to dissolve large swathes of pork in the government. Now, if we can just add moral compass and precise political tactics to that formula, we'll have a truly unstoppable juggernaut. While I can perceive the problems, I don't have any concrete suggestions on how to do better. I hate politics and it's just not my particular sandbox.

[ClaytonB]

Yep, as productivity has increased, so has the number of parasites, thieves, and grifters, with 10 of them sapping wealth, for every 1 person doing honest work

Slavery is the real perfect drug...

[Madison320]

While I agree that size of government is a problem, I think that most people don't understand why it's a problem (and I don't think most of them ever really will) and so focusing on the size-in-itself allows the Establishment to redirect from the real problems (which are all fundamental moral evils) to technical disputes about how many departments we should have and what their headcounts should be. What the Fed does is armed-robbery -- it is evil. The IRS facilitates the Fed and is a creature of the illegally passed 16th-amendment and, therefore, what it does is evil. The headcount of the IRS is irrelevant to its evilness. But the Repugs-Demoncrats love to have a debate over whether there should be 87,000 IRS agents or some other number. That gives them something to talk about besides the evil-ness of what the IRS/Fed/etc. do. That's a discussion they never tolerate on the big-microphone, ever. Not even one syllable of discussion is permitted. Ron Paul is one of the few rare exceptions and we see how they stymied him throughout his whole career.

There are the moral issues, and there are the tactical political calculations, and then there is a third factor which Machiavelli called virtu but in English we would call strength or might. Whether you loved him or hated him, the one thing that Trump definitely had was strength -- he had a powerful movement and people were excited by him and turned out in massive numbers. It's debatable whether Trump has a moral compass and his tactical political calculations were often incorrect. At some point, whether with Trump or someone else, we need to get all three legs of that 3-legged stool under a movement for liberty. With enough strength, questions of "size of government" quickly become irrelevant because, if I can turn out super-majorities of the US public in support of my movement, I can just dissolve your agency and fire everyone without ceremony. This was the mostly unstated implication behind MAGA... we're building a huge movement that has enough strength to dissolve large swathes of pork in the government. Now, if we can just add moral compass and precise political tactics to that formula, we'll have a truly unstoppable juggernaut. While I can perceive the problems, I don't have any concrete suggestions on how to do better. I hate politics and it's just not my particular sandbox.

I think the root of the problem is unrestricted democracy. The candidate who wins is usually the one who promises the most free stuff. I don't think you should be allowed to vote if you are getting more money from the government than you are paying in taxes. It's a massive conflict of interest. Maybe there's a better way but I don't know what it is. And if you really value your vote you can still vote. Just stop taking welfare and you can vote.

We're getting close to the point where budget cuts are going to be forced on us by reality. I think high to hyperinflation will be the end of the "free stuff" era for awhile.

[Occam's Banana]

Attempts by radical feminists to get some kind of national legislation will go nowhere because of the decision that it's a state issue. This should take the issue's impact out of federal races and whatever fights take place will be at the state level.

I don't think this is correct. IIRC, SCOTUS did not rule that abortion is strictly a state-level issue.

SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, which "discovered" that abortion rights were secured under the Constitution without any need for explicit federal legislation. The Dobbs decision reversed that "discovery" - meaning that if abortion is to be limited or protected at the federal level, Congress will first have to pass a law to that effect. So unless and until Congress does that, the states will get to make their own decisions on the issue.

This means that "radical feminists [attempting] to get some kind of national legislation" are not necessarily wasting their time and effort, and the abortion issue will continue to be a factor in federal races.

[nobody's_hero]

That is the question, isn't it? On principle, reversing Roe was the correct judicial decision. Is the timing of such a verdict important? Who decides on the timing? What are the motivations?

Granted, there are elections every two years, so it's hard to avoid those. Thus, the best time for a controversial ruling would be right after an election, not a couple of months before.

IMO there never would have been a good time for it. The media is pretty good at keeping an issue alive when they want to.

2 years is no problem, before or immediately after an election. They've been talking about you-know-who since he embarrassed Clinton in 2016. No doubt they're going to make abortion an issue until they get the majority they want again. Maybe they'll do like the republicans did and not take any action on it once they've gotten into office, but if there's one thing democrats are still better at than republicans, it's pushing issues without any regard for consequences.

As for executive fiat to abolish the national bank, maybe that creates a bit of 'means justify the ends' moral dilemma, but that's how they got rid of it in 1833. "Old Hickory" just decided to announce that the government wasn't going to use the bank anymore and "killed the bank." I guess the biggest difference there was while the bank was a place for government deposits back then, it's a place where the government gets its freshly printed money now, so the short term impact would probably be even more "catastrophic".

[TheTexan]

All else being equal, if I had to choose between winning a few congressional seats in the House, and saving a few babies' lives, I know what I would choose

[Brian4Liberty]

All else being equal, if I had to choose between winning a few congressional seats in the House, and saving a few babies' lives, I know what I would choose

Interestingly enough, that is pretty much the same rationale behind the hard core gun grabbers.