you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, clearly. they've already chipped away at it, and 4 justices are aching to overturn it already. one more republican appointee and it's gone.

also Roe isn't the only thing to worry about. one more liberal justice and citizens united gets overturned. not to mention the eradication of rights related to criminal procedure that could be potentially restored.

i don't feel like having this argument. you are very clearly wrong.

uhhh

but we do use fpp. and so the games have to be played. i'd change it too, but i can't. so i deal with what i have. pragmatism has its place.

eulogy at some point you're going to have to realize that predictions are subjective

and at some point you're going to have to realize that the supreme court matters more than you seem to understand and that another republican appointee would be disastrous. i can link to the old thread if i have to. i'm not going over it again.

You do realise that this is the exact argument which right-wingers use? You are following the program dude.

But it doesn't, not in FPP. That's exactly my point. By choosing the "pragmatic" option, you are actually not being pragmatic or strategic at all. You are being a pawn.

right wingers say we need to elect a democratic president to prevent a republican appointee to the supreme court?

hysterical arm waving

pointing out one of the only things a president has any actual, direct effect on and acknowledging its importance is not hysterical.

you just think that any reason to vote is automatically invalid and so any explanation of it will seem hysterical to you. there really is no point in having this conversation again.

yeah because you're still convinced it's defcon 6

even though everyone has pointed out that it's been defcon 6 on this issue for decades and decades

and then you're like "OMGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ U DON'T NO HOW SUPER CORT WURX" and i'm like a case has to go through two levels before it even reaches the supreme court, also a retiring lefty judge, like RBG (lol) would probably step down during obama's lame duck, democrats would probably block any other hardline scalia/roberts/alito type from getting appointed as well as the fact that clarence thomas could quit or drop dead by the time the appeal to Roe v. Wade gets to the bench which could be a decade from now if at all, or that like just recently with roberts vote on obamacare there's no reason to believe that you know how someone is going to vote... i mean there are so many variables that acting like abortion will become illegal immediately if romney is president is hysteria.

i think it's more likely that he wars with iran, but you're just completely fucking focused on these goddamn social issues to the exclusion of all else.

if you actually read roberts' opinion you would understand that it is nothing to be excited about.

and roe has been clearly in danger since planned parenthood v. casey. luckily we have had two democratic presidents during that time period to keep the balance from shifting further to the right. i don't want to bet on having that luck continue indefinitely.

and at least half of the country is pro-life. any republican appointee would potentially vote to overturn roe. it's not a risk worth taking so that we can just stomp our feet in frustration because the country is full of idiots and won't elect anyone good.

oh i'm sorry i thought obamneycare was upheld

but again, i don't want to go over all of this again. but it's not only roe. it's every fucking decision the court makes. you want citizens united overturned? elect a democratic president. it is the only way that can happen.

read the opinion before you try to talk to me about it

citizens united is never getting overturned with the current party system, you're not paying attention

i think you're alluding to the fact that it leaves the option to opt out of medicaid which no one in their right mind would ever do because it would enrage the all important gray vote.

it was a 5-4 decision

what the fuck are you talking about

citizens united is just as big a boon for democrats as it is for republicans

no, i'm not

read the goddamn opinion. his commerce clause discussion was radically conservative and laid the groundwork for more terrible decisions in the future.

i'm talking about how politics is business now, not government. and that's why all of this is moot.

i'm probably too stupid to understand it anyway

that wouldn't matter even if it were true.

lol, you just gotta believe with all your heart huh

This is pretty much the big reason I favour Obama over Romney, gun to my head. It's crazy that a man who has killed thousands of innocents, directly ordered the death of an American child for god's sake, supports the use of indiscriminate drone strikes, has started several wars, continues to line the pockets of multi-national defence contractors and believes he has the right (and has acted on it) to assassinate American citizens is the less radical candidate.

see we're not all that different

honestly i think the current court would potentially overturn it. i bet kennedy regrets his vote.

i don't think either party as a whole wants a overturn based on all the dough they are raking in

good thing the political parties don't write supreme court opinions.

So... do we recognize that the difference between "My Side" and the other side is science? Or are we going to respect the opinions of Bible-thumping, climate-change-denying, trickle-down economists?

Strength of belief does not equal truth...

not really most of these things don't make obama different than any other US president

what several wars did obama start. sigh nevermind dont answer that

The war on Christmas, the war on God, the war on freedom...

I'm sure he means intervention in Libya, extension of Bush's assassination program in Pakistan, sending military advisers to Uganda

What heartless warlord would follow france in aiding libyan rebels to fight a lunatic despot. Obama truly is a rightwing nutjob

well since the iraq war and the our country's experiment with a neoconservative administration, less moderate liberals have generally retreated from their traditional espousal to "compassionate" intervention.

I tried and failed, he doesnt get this part

edit: hes convinced the dem party will always be against it

i wouldnt say never though, thats over shooting a bit

why are people convinced he will war with Iran? I didnt get this view when they said it about McCain either. I mean if Israel does anything we're pretty much there regardless of who's President, and I dont see either R or O doing it on their own.

Maybe, but I'm willing to say to Obama (and any other presidential candidates) that it's unacceptable to outright promise one thing for my vote and then do exactly the opposite. I also want to say, by voting for a third, more ideological party, that these issues are more important to me than what Obama or Romney are pedaling.

You are communicating, by your vote for Obama, that you are perfectly okay with everything he's done - because ultimately, he hasn't killed enough people or payed off enough executives to make you stay home or do something else. So why would any future democratic candidate do anything different? You are proving to them that they don't have to. You are enabling the very policies that you (supposedly) don't like. It's pretty much classic codependency.

I mean, I don't expect to convince you to change you vote, but I think it's at least important for you to know what you are doing.