A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 572 of 725
What are Democrats going to do about the Supreme Court's Abortion Decision? How about nothing? Does nothing work for you?
Late Wednesday night, the Supreme Court quietly gutted Roe v. Wade. At issue was a new Texas law that allows any dipshit in the state to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks, and to collect a $10,000 reward for their efforts. An unsigned, five-justice Supreme Court majority looked at the insane clusterfuck we described in the previous sentence and said, ahhhh our hands are tied, allowing it to go into effect while litigation is pursued, and making Texas’ creepy bounty-hunter abortion ban model legislation for every other red state to pursue. This would be an ideal time for Democrats, including the president, to act on their pledge to codify Roe protections into federal law. They will face substantial pressure to do so. But as with voting rights, the numbers just aren’t there. The relevant legislation here—the Women’s Health Protection Act—has 48 Democratic sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate. The two not on board are Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who are both anti-abortion. Casey could go wobbly in the next 10 seconds, but Joe Manchin seems far less likely to do so. Democrats would still need to eliminate the filibuster to pass it, too, and they won’t. Democrats are also not going to pack the courts, which, again, neither has majority support as policy nor is a policy over which they’d nuke the filibuster. Democrats will, instead, try to pocket the effective elimination of Roe as a potent wedge issue with lucrative fundraising and turnout potential. They’ll say they need more Democrats in Congress to enact the legislative change necessary to push back on the actions of this court. It will be aggravating to hear them say this. But—[ducks for cover]—they’ll basically be right.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/the-surge-roe-abortion-man
chin-democrats.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Social Security Trustees’ Report Is Out
When is a not-a-lie really a lie?
When the liar gives you a part of “true information” and leaves out “the whole truth” in order to lead you to a false conclusion. Or worse, to lead you to do something that hurts you.
Today Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, CRFB, issued a statement in which she said:
“Acting today, we could fix Social Security with a 27 percent tax increase or 21 percent benefit reduction.”
What makes this a lie, though technically “true,” is that MacGuineas knows that the “27% tax increase” is 27% of a 6.2% tax…or about a 2% of payroll increase. On the other hand, the 21% benefit reduction is indeed 21% of the whole benefit. An average benefit is about 1500 dollars…so the benefit cut would amount to 300 dollars, leaving the retiree with about 1200 dollars a month to live on.
But the 2% of payroll tax increase, that would eliminate this benefit cut, would be 2% of about a 1,000 dollar per week paycheck.. or about $20 dollars per week. And CRFB knows that this $20 per week increase in the tax does not have to happen all at once, but can be phased in about a dollar per week per year at a time, while wages are expected to grow by over 200 dollars per week (at 10 dollars per week per year).
MacGuineas also says, “Not only is this year’s outlook worse than in last year’s report,..” but it’s not. Not materially. The long-predicted shortfall in Social Security finances is the same as it has been since 2007 or earlier. SS will require a 4% increase in the tax in about 2030 or so, which can be reached by phasing it in at one-tenth of one percent at a time (if we start now). That 4% is the combined tax for both the employer and the worker. I used the one-tenth of one percent per year..which is the worker’s share and will be matched by a one-tenth of one percent per year increase in the tax paid by the employer. Sorry for the confusion, but I believe that the share paid by the worker is what matters to him, while the combined worker plus employer tax is what most people, not workers talk about.
https://angrybearblog.com/2021/09/social-security-trustees-report-out-
crfb-lies-about-it
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
What are Democrats going to do about the Supreme Court's Abortion Decision? How about nothing? Does nothing work for you?
Late Wednesday night, the Supreme Court quietly gutted Roe v. Wade. At issue was a new Texas law that allows any dipshit in the state to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks, and to collect a $10,000 reward for their efforts. An unsigned, five-justice Supreme Court majority looked at the insane clusterfuck we described in the previous sentence and said, ahhhh our hands are tied, allowing it to go into effect while litigation is pursued, and making Texas’ creepy bounty-hunter abortion ban model legislation for every other red state to pursue. This would be an ideal time for Democrats, including the president, to act on their pledge to codify Roe protections into federal law. They will face substantial pressure to do so. But as with voting rights, the numbers just aren’t there. The relevant legislation here—the Women’s Health Protection Act—has 48 Democratic sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate. The two not on board are Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who are both anti-abortion. Casey could go wobbly in the next 10 seconds, but Joe Manchin seems far less likely to do so. Democrats would still need to eliminate the filibuster to pass it, too, and they won’t. Democrats are also not going to pack the courts, which, again, neither has majority support as policy nor is a policy over which they’d nuke the filibuster. Democrats will, instead, try to pocket the effective elimination of Roe as a potent wedge issue with lucrative fundraising and turnout potential. They’ll say they need more Democrats in Congress to enact the legislative change necessary to push back on the actions of this court. It will be aggravating to hear them say this. But—[ducks for cover]—they’ll basically be right.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/the-surge-roe-abortion-man
chin-democrats.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
You don't read shit or know anything about the recent ruling, buddy.
It's not anywhere near what your Lefty shill sites are saying it is.
But they rely on you being stupid and not looking at the ruling yourself and taking their word for it. Way to make them not have to work for a living, as per usual.
I wouldn't suggest trying anything stupid with the federal justices.
Go get yourself a hobby before you get yourself into trouble.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
When is a not-a-lie really a lie?
When the liar gives you a part of “true information” and leaves out “the whole truth” in order to lead you to a false conclusion. Or worse, to lead you to do something that hurts you.
Oh. You mean like every story you've posted about Roe v Wade.
Gotcha.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Social Security Trustees’ Report Is Out
When is a not-a-lie really a lie?
When the liar gives you a part of “true information” and leaves out “the whole truth” in order to lead you to a false conclusion. Or worse, to lead you to do something that hurts you.
Today Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, CRFB, issued a statement in which she said:
“Acting today, we could fix Social Security with a 27 percent tax increase or 21 percent benefit reduction.”
What makes this a lie, though technically “true,” is that MacGuineas knows that the “27% tax increase” is 27% of a 6.2% tax…or about a 2% of payroll increase. On the other hand, the 21% benefit reduction is indeed 21% of the whole benefit. An average benefit is about 1500 dollars…so the benefit cut would amount to 300 dollars, leaving the retiree with about 1200 dollars a month to live on.
But the 2% of payroll tax increase, that would eliminate this benefit cut, would be 2% of about a 1,000 dollar per week paycheck.. or about $20 dollars per week. And CRFB knows that this $20 per week increase in the tax does not have to happen all at once, but can be phased in about a dollar per week per year at a time, while wages are expected to grow by over 200 dollars per week (at 10 dollars per week per year).
MacGuineas also says, “Not only is this year’s outlook worse than in last year’s report,..” but it’s not. Not materially. The long-predicted shortfall in Social Security finances is the same as it has been since 2007 or earlier. SS will require a 4% increase in the tax in about 2030 or so, which can be reached by phasing it in at one-tenth of one percent at a time (if we start now). That 4% is the combined tax for both the employer and the worker. I used the one-tenth of one percent per year..which is the worker’s share and will be matched by a one-tenth of one percent per year increase in the tax paid by the employer. Sorry for the confusion, but I believe that the share paid by the worker is what matters to him, while the combined worker plus employer tax is what most people, not workers talk about.
https://angrybearblog.com/2021/09/social-security-trustees-report-out-
crfb-lies-about-it
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Your idiot blogger here did the same thing he was accusing MacGuineas of doing.
27% would be BOTH the employee side of the payroll taxes AND the business side. So you're paying 2% more immediately, and paying the other 2% in a few years when your employer figures out how to fuck you and pass that cost on to you through lower pay increases.
ETA: I don't feel bad for anybody making $1k per week today if they can't weather a 21% reduction in benefits in retirement. WTF were they doing with their money?
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The first sentence of the decision is the only sentence you need to understand, 6ix:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You don't read shit or know anything about the recent ruling, buddy.
It's not anywhere near what your Lefty shill sites are saying it is.
But they rely on you being stupid and not looking at the ruling yourself and taking their word for it. Way to make them not have to work for a living, as per usual.
I wouldn't suggest trying anything stupid with the federal justices.
Go get yourself a hobby before you get yourself into trouble.
"The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative,
to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented
to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
That is too much to read for most people. Simplifying: Alito says, "Request denied."
The rest of the decision, which was NOT written by Alito, says that the Texas Abortion Law is unconstitutional because it violates Roe v Wade.
Now to tell you something that should be obvious: Alito was asked to enforce Roe v Wade and he refused to enforce that constitutional decision. "Request denied." The Constitution does not enforce itself. Either Judges like Alito do the enforcement or else it is not done. It is up to the judges to enforce the Constitution, not up to you and me.
Texas Heartbeat Act begins like this: "The legislature finds that the State of Texas never repealed, either expressly or by implication, the state statutes enacted before the ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother's life is in danger."
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961
Texas and Alito know perfectly well that the Texas Heartbeat Act is cancelling Roe v Wade.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The first sentence of the decision is the only sentence you need to understand, 6ix:
"The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative,
to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented
to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
That is too much to read for most people. Simplifying: Alito says, "Request denied."
No.
That's dumbing it down for retards like you, to the point that it doesn't even mean what they say it means anymore.
That's also why you're angry over nothing here.
The Democrats are exceedingly good at riling up their voter base full of low-info morons via their Legacy Media.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even Newsweek says you're wrong.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-could-not-block-te
xas-fetal-heartbeat-law-opinion/ar-AAO3LVE
Newsweek loves blowing Democrats.
The fact that four "Justices" voted in dissent here just shows how agenda driven they are, and how unfit for the position they were appointed to they are.
Your precious Roe v Wade is still intact, and you're still free to murder all the babies you want to.
Even in Texas.
And that's sound legal advice. 
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:While working as a Justice Department lawyer in 1985, Samuel Alito wrote in a memo that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade," the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Being a Right-to-Life Catholic, Supreme Court Justice Alito has always believed Roe v Wade was a wrong decision. Now he is undoing it for Texas only because he is Catholic and not for any legal reasons. It is strictly a religious decision that does not mention that his personal religion is Alito's motivation.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The first sentence of the decision is the only sentence you need to understand, 6ix:
"The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative,
to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented
to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf
That is too much to read for most people. Simplifying: Alito says, "Request denied."
No.
That's dumbing it down for retards like you, to the point that it doesn't even mean what they say it means anymore.
That's also why you're angry over nothing here.
The Democrats are exceedingly good at riling up their voter base full of low-info morons via their Legacy Media.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5033132
In thousands of TV episodes about murder mysteries, the law against murder does not enforce itself, but rather requires a Sherlock Holmes or a Detective Columbo to follow the clues and identify the true murderer. Similarly, when a Constitutional principle has been murdered, the Constitution does not enforce itself. It requires a Judge to enforce the Constitution and to do what a homicide detective does -- follow the clues, identify the murderer, issue an injunction. Judge Alito decided he is on vacation while Texas murdered Roe v Wade.
Judge Alito didn't pay attention to the clues because Alito wanted Roe v Wade dead back in 1985. In 2020, Alito talked about abortion: “It pains me to say this,” Alito said, “but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” As an example, Alito decried a Washington state law requiring a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for “morning-after pills, which destroy an embryo after fertilization”, as he put it. In 2021, Alito is killing Roe v Wade to enforce Alito's religious belief.
Justice Alito takes aim at abortion rights, gay marriage and Covid rules
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/13/justice-samuel-alito-supre
me-court-liberty
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Read the Newsweek article.
I'm done with you.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME