AOC was talking about Zuckerberg, but Elon just had to make it all about himself by "burning her."

But the "burn" worked as intended. Conservatives have been wanking off to the tweet all day.

Owning the liberals >>> things like truth and facts for these people, forever and always.

Step 1 - Obstruct and project
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - Profit

Yeah, this is why I have a hard time talking politics online because you either have people who ignore facts and cherry pick (usually on the right) or those that have such a strict dogma that any level of disagreement on sensitive subjects gets you a label (usually on the left)

It’s why I love this site because even when we disagree people here tend to keep it civil outside of a few blemishes here and there. It is such a nice outlet.

It's very easy to see something clipped to hell and have a very strong reaction to it. Most websites rely on this for clicks/revenue. It's also been a tactic of local news stations for the longest of times. "At 11, find out why YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOT SAFE from ____".

So AOCs point quickly became an example of her point.

I'd say the overall tweet storm was a response to Musk, even if that individual tweet was using Zuckerberg as an example. Not that it really matters though.

I think the argument that Musk is way into himself is a bit proven by this miscommunication. Which is fine, if we all have electric cars within 20’years

Looks like Roe v Wade is getting cancelled. Just says a majority though, the big question is whether it would have passed if the Pubs hadn't stolen the Merick Garland seat.

Better rubber up gents!

I'll wait to see if it's real, but I feel the Supreme Court being neutral on abortion is the correct move, for what their job is supposed to be. The constitution obviously can't settle the ultra difficult, philosophical question of whether killing a fetus is murder yet.

I would wait and see, for sure, but I would not be surprised if that is what happens

I am not celbrating until it is official. We have been waiting almost 50 years, so I'm not optimistic.

Whatever you think of abortion, Roe is a trash decision with no right to abortion and no right to privacy anywhere in the constitution. Judicial activism for sure. If abortion should be legal nationwide, use the legislature, not the courts.

California has already promised to pay for people from red states to go there for abortions lol

Assuming it happens, which seems likely, then it will be the first time Americans will have less freedom / rights than the generation before them.

With a partisan Supreme Court, much is on the table to be overturned in the coming years. Alito has been mentioning same-sex marriage recently, so that's quite likely to be overturned with the current court, too.

Of course, the Senate can get ahead of this and codify the law. Will they? Not betting on it. Senate Democrats are a group of do-nothings. Susan Collins, at least, should feel obligated to get on board with codifying it though since her vote was largely the reason we're here.

Collins has come out this morning to say if the leak is true, it'd mean that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were "entirely inconsistent" (lied) about what they told her in her office before their confirmation hearings. Lady... fucking DUH. You'd think someone so involved in politics would know overturning Roe v Wade has been a top priority among conservatives for decades--they can't keep their noses out of other's personal business.

The only "good?" thing about this is that it *should* drive Democrats and young people to the polls in November. Young people and the far-left really screwed up in 2016, with this being the consequence of them staying home or voting third-party. Maybe, hopefully, they've come to realize their vote matters, now more than ever with a Supreme Court that can overturn anything considered settled law.

2/3rds of Americans SUPPORT Roe v Wade. Many of the white "Christian" women will still vote for any Republican candidate, while going out of their way to get their 13 year old daughters abortions in secret (and claim miscarriages) while they bash the idea to friends and relatives, but everyone else should be coming out in droves against this.

Incorrect. Babies will have the right to life in red states. Woohoo for the right to life. The only right that they won't have is the right to murder babies, which never should have been allowed in the first place


Yes, because the court that decided Roe was completely neutral and just was correctly interpreting the constitution. Same sex marriage is not on the same level of priority for conservatives since no one is being murdered, but its also absent from the constitution and marriage would need to be constitutionally redefined with an amendment for that decision to not to rightfully be by the states.[/quote]



45% of the country believes abortions should be illegal in all or most cases. Majority of pro choice people think it should only be legal in first trimester. Majority of those pro choice people would "never have an abortion themselves, but support the right for others to do so" because abortion advocates have been so successful in convincing people that its a sacred right to choose to kill your baby, but don't support the right to choose all sorts of other crimes like murder, rape, theft etc.

So even if 2/3 of people support Roe v Wade
a) they can still vote to make it illegal through the LEGISLATURE, which is where this should have been decided in the first place
b)only for like 1/4 of voters AT MOST would consider abortion access among their top priority, even if they support access overall. Other issues take precedence for most pro choice people.
c) the republican party has been nothing but a diet coke Democrat party for so long now that Republicans are still going to be turning out and force to make sure recent wins like this are not lost.

Dude, women aren't out here getting abortions with the mindset that they're murdering their baby. It's a insult to suggest they are even if you *believe* they are.

If this country actually had decent health care, maternity leave, child care, and any number of other issues we're so far behind on, abortions would decrease nationwide. Why hasn't this been a priority among conservatives? Once the baby is born, little else matters.

Having a marriage legal in one state and not another is absurd. It's the same fucking country and should be recognized in all parts of that country. Saying it's not in the constitution, and therefore should be decided by the states, is an excuse for many to oppose it so they don't have to legally recognize it. There are many rights today (such as racial justice rights) not in the constitution that could be banned / restricted if they're tossed to the states. Not saying they *will*, but the fact that they *can* is horrifying.

Just cause someone doesn't believe what they are doing is wrong doesn't make it not wrong.

By your logic, we should just abolish states if you don't think they should be able to pass laws you don't like

I don't care about same sex marriage really since marriage is before God, not before the government.

For me the Loving v Virginia interracial marriage ruling actually was logical based on "equal protection of the law" clause

The abortion one is harder because it depends whether someone thinks a 4 month old fetus is equally alive as one a day after it's born, which is more of a philosophical question to me I don't think anyone can really answer. I think most people would say the constitution supports that someone's right to privacy doesn't give them the right to smother their baby after it's born, so it really depends on whether crossing the line to being alive is being physically born or earlier.

When determining is a life is worth protecting, you must ask what makes a life worth protecting. The only consistent answer to that question would be something's humanity. Any other determination is arbitrary and up for interpretation.

If human life is valuable at one stage it is valuable at all stages. It is illogical to say a certain human has value due to their humanity and another is not

Also in response to the "we are all one country dammit! what is legal in one state should be legal in every state" argument, I'd vastly prefer a nationwide ban on abortion. But as that is impossible with the congress split the way it is between pro life and prochoice people. So we'll settle for this in the meantime

A fetus isn't a person, its a parasite, and nobody besides the host should have a say on whether the parasite is allowed to persist.

Now, if you wanna make an argument that these hoes need to stop getting pregnant in our already overpopulated world then I'm right with you. But we know the Christian Taliban isn't gonna do anything to make acquiring contraceptions easier.Even rape is a "gift from God" in their eyes after all. Thus why so many priests give their gifts to young boys.

Also it looks like the decision is gonna be 5-4 with Roberts siding against it. So if the voters hadn't let the Pubs get away with stealing the court seat from Merick Garland, this never would have happened.

See kids, cheating works.

A parasite is an invader, except for in cases of rape which account for less than 1% of abortions, then it is not an invader, the woman allowed the man to ejaculate semen inside of her and risk pregnancy.

You can't take actions you know can result in a baby and then use abortion as post hoc birth contro and claim you had no choice. If you are in a position where you think you would have to get an abortion, and could not keep the baby or give it up for adoption, you should not be having sex

The answer to when is the beginning of life will always be subjective. Even with science it is debatable when this occurs. At conception, new DNA is formed, but then that DNA is also unique when is sperm or an egg. So you can keep turning the table back. A heartbeat? Well that heartbeat is entire dependent on the woman and until it is born, it is a part of the woman. Of course few would say to abort a baby in the third trimester. So again, the debate continues. Those of faith have their answer first and look for evidence to support their answer. Those of rational thought look for evidence and then come up with their answer. The former have their answer and fight to defend it, even if they are wrong they never will be in their mind because faith guides them. The latter can often times never find the answer, and be right one moment and wrong the next, only to be right once more. This topic is the continued battle between what makes religion and what makes science. Faith versus reason.

However, in this battle there lay a victim, and right or wrong, it is women and the right to their body. Perhaps that right was never theirs to begin with, but it was a right striped nonetheless.

I am pro-choice and always will be. It is far too complex of a topic for the government to weigh on. Murder of a person born is an easy and distinguishable event, but murder at the unborn state? As Shack said, it enters the realm of the philosophical.

People are acting like they can't vote to uphold abortion rights. If you need to shove it on the courts and can't legislate abortion access into law, maybe you're worried not as many people support abortion as you think

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately birth control doesn't have a 100% success rate.

You want less abortions? Make tubal litigations and vasectomies less expensive and more widely available.

Exactly, which is why if you can't do the bare minimum and carry the baby for 9 months before giving it up, you should not be having sex.

Carrying a baby is inconvenient for sure, but far less inconvenient than killing the baby.

Why should the people who would never kill a baby subsidize other people's sexual decisions?

But you know damn well that's never going to happen. If you're against abortions for philosophical or religious reasons, you need to implement policies so people who want to have sex, which is a perfectly normal desire, but not have a child can do so without having to pay thousands of dollars. Saying "well don't have sex" is hypocritical and tone-deaf.