r/Eugene • u/Revolutionary-Boss77 • Nov 06 '24

How likely are we women to be affected by reproduction rights here after orange man is in the house ? News

I am new to politics and first time voter and I feel a lot uncertainty right now and I would like to know how likely is Eugene OR to be affected with new rules for women reproductions rights

109 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

View all comments

412

u/LalaLane850 Nov 06 '24

Unlikely. Beyond unlikely. There are plenty of other miserable things Eugene could be affected by though. I am like heartbroken and in disbelief at my fellow Americans. What a bunch of dummies.

324

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

If Republicans end up with a majority in the House, I think a national abortion ban is absolutely on the table.

189

u/ozzie510 Nov 06 '24

That and no-fault divorce, at a minimum.

91

u/CompletelyBedWasted Nov 06 '24

Welcome to Gilead

8

u/dbzgod9 Nov 06 '24

I'm reading this series right now!

20

u/Temassi Nov 06 '24

That reminds me of when I read The Stand at the beginning of 2020

13

u/bluecrowned Nov 06 '24

Horrible timing lol, I used to love stuff like that but it's too real now!

2

u/wintertash Nov 08 '24

Remember that the author has said that the circumstances of the book are based entirely on things that have actually happened in world history

1

u/FranticToaster Nov 10 '24

It's really just the one book. Second book reads like the author just wanted to set some guardrails on the series.

Excellent book, though.

16

u/EnemaOfMyEnemy Nov 06 '24

I've never wanted to get married but now I'm definitely nor going to.

3

u/jugrimm Nov 07 '24

I thought we already had no fault divorce in Oregon? Or does it mean something I’m not thinking of? Or being used in a different way that I am thinking of? I’m genuinely asking. I don’t understand what the implication is.

7

u/onion_wrongs Nov 07 '24

I think the person you replied to meant a possible ban on no-fault divorce.

1

u/jugrimm Nov 15 '24

Ooh. Gotcha.

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Mall822 Nov 06 '24

Oregon already is no fault divorce

4

u/CommonLavishness9343 Nov 06 '24

They're saying a national ban on it

1

u/washington_jefferson Nov 07 '24

I guess I don't know enough about no-fault divorce. Can you elaborate on that? I thought alimony and other benefit considerations are still paid out- it's just that if one person wants out...that's it. Generally, I disagree with most things Republicans support, but I do like to know specifics from community members before coming to a judgement.

The Christian South and Midwest bloc will not go away. Kids born to Gen-X and Millennial parents from these areas follow in their parents' footpaths.

It's incredible that Biden beat Trump. I think our campaign managers forgot about that. Going forward we need someone like Tom Hanks or Matt Damon on the ballot- like seriously- Tom Hanks or Matt Damon. The American public is sexist and bigoted, and you have to account for that.

1

u/FranticToaster Nov 10 '24

Is the worry that states will start no-fault or stop it?

0

u/SpiceEarl Nov 07 '24

I think we are far more likely to see Republicans try to ban or limit abortion, than they are to limit divorce on the federal level. If only for the massive number of their supporters this could affect.

With abortion, it's only women of childbearing age. With divorce, it has the potential to affect a far greater number of Republicans, both men and women, with no upper age limit.

Don't get me wrong, there are conservatives who would love to ban or limit divorce. However, the reality is they are only a small percentage of Republicans as a whole.

31

u/LalaLane850 Nov 06 '24

This is terrifying. I’m thinking more towards states rights. But yes I suppose anything could be on the table. Which is even more terrifying.

93

u/ZardozZod Nov 06 '24

“States rights” have always been a mirage for Conservatives to get what they want without the federal power to make it national. Now it’s all but within their grasp.

48

u/13igTyme Nov 06 '24

States rights only matter when democrats are in the white house and have control of congress. When the GOP is in control, states rights don't matter.

-20

u/Environmental_Cup_93 Nov 06 '24

How is that true when we’ve had legal weed for 8 years no problems but it’s been federally illegal the whole time?

19

u/13igTyme Nov 06 '24

Because the state makes a law saying they won't enforce the federal law. The FBI could still come to Oregon and start arresting people, but they don't have the man power or care.

-19

u/Environmental_Cup_93 Nov 06 '24

Exactly, so there is no reason to be concerned about states rights.The Feds have bigger fish to fry

12

u/OculusOmnividens Nov 06 '24

You mean like our Presi... oh, wait.

10

u/13igTyme Nov 06 '24

Until they start to care. The president can fire the director of the FBI and the senate can appoint a new director. If that new director wants to target blue states and enforce federal laws, they have every right and the power to do so.

-8

u/Environmental_Cup_93 Nov 06 '24

Well I smoked legally thru 4 years of republican office, 4 years of democrat, plan to another 4 under republican. Are there any other states rights you think the feds would crack down on over here?

→ More replies

25

u/DothrakAndRoll Nov 06 '24

He specifically said he wouldn’t support a national ban, so we know he will absolutely make it happen.

24

u/ZardozZod Nov 06 '24

He’ll do whatever his P2025 handlers tell him to do. They just need to suggest it to him and make him think it was his idea. One of the few things Trump has said that I believe to be true is that he hasn’t read P2025 because he doesn’t have the attention span for it. But the people he surrounds himself will absolutely push the agenda and use him as the vector. If he’s unwilling for whatever reason, then they’ll just get Vance in there.

1

u/Inject-Bleach Nov 09 '24

What most miss about P2025 is that they think it’s some 4-year plan, when it’s actually the 180-day plan. They don’t need to release the rest because the whole point of P2025 is to reorganize the federal government so P2026 is actually possible… etc. etc.

The timeline here is they intend on doing everything in it before August of 2025. That’s why it’s only a single year. What’s scariest of all is that if they are truly successful, Project 2025 only says what they intend to do within the first 12% of Trump’s presidency.

1

u/AsterismRaptor Nov 09 '24

I mean.. wouldn’t be the first time he’s lied.

1

u/crankysasquatch Nov 06 '24

It’s a euphemism for “no federal protections”

1

u/Dry_Occasion_9598 Nov 07 '24

Not true. We used states rights to vote in medical and recreational marijuana, even though it is still federally illegal. That is a notoriously liberal issue.

11

u/Snibes1 Nov 06 '24

Right, federal law supersedes state law…

20

u/leaky- Nov 06 '24

Marijuana is also illegal from a federal standpoint

3

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

And technically the DEA could crack down on legal weed but they choose not to enforce the law except where producers are violating state law and especially when they are moving product across state lines. That could change at any time. But if a federal abortion ban passes, the administration will absolutely make enforcement a priority.

4

u/leaky- Nov 07 '24

Doesn’t he want to gut federal institutions? It’s gonna take a crazy amount of resources to enforce a federal abortion ban, especially given that there are six new states that voted to legalize abortion

1

u/WhereIsYourBodNow Nov 08 '24

Do you know what Roe v. Wade actually did?

1

u/leaky- Nov 08 '24

Yeah it allowed the states to decide.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 08 '24

No, it reversed precedent that established that the 14th amendment guarantees a right to privacy that prohibits any laws from being passed within the US that prohibit abortion. That reversal allowed states to once again pass abortion bans, but it also removed protection against the Federal government passing an abortion ban. And because Federal Law supersedes State Law except where states have explicit domain, if a federal abortion ban passed, it would outlaw abortion even in states that have codified the right to an abortion into their laws.

→ More replies

1

u/Sklibba Nov 08 '24

He wants to gut regulatory agencies and agencies that help poor people, but you’re crazy if you think he wants to defund agencies that he andthe GOP needs to carry out their agenda. Like he wants to do mass deportations. Do you really think he’s going to gut ICE? If a federal abortion ban gets passed, there will be plenty of resources for enforcement.

2

u/LoneStarDragon Nov 08 '24

You know Republicans are out of power when they promote state's rights.

You know Republicans are in power when they promote federal control.

1

u/Prestigious-Packrat Nov 06 '24

I'm with you on the states rights thing. It's pretty much what was already established with Dobbs, and I think it would be difficult even for this current travesty of a SCOTUS to justify hearing another case on the matter. 

4

u/Dry-Committee-9395 Nov 06 '24

With 1 or 2 more alt right people on there, I would not be shocked..

1

u/Prestigious-Packrat Nov 06 '24

Are you expecting a couple justices to die or step down or something? 

4

u/Dry-Committee-9395 Nov 06 '24

Yes. Could even be 3 if Sotomayors’ health declines.

27

u/1upin Nov 06 '24

Even if they aren't able to totally ban it (which I do think they might accomplish), they will at the very least be able to fuck with it by messing with the medication supply and other BS regulations.

18

u/dr_analog Nov 06 '24 edited 17d ago

[u/dr_analog is now banned: non-leftist political opinions are not allowed here]

14

u/Moarbrains Nov 06 '24

A lot of places that elected trump also passed aboortion referendums.

6

u/El_Bistro Nov 06 '24

They need 60 votes in the senate to do that

28

u/FreeLookMode Nov 06 '24

What? They absolutely do not need 60 votes to pass legislation. The first thing that the Senate majority leader will do is nuke the filibuster rule. It's a rule, not a law, not a constitutional mandate. The filibuster rule literally was enacted in my lifetime. Previously, if you remember any of the old movies, a fillabuster meant you literally had to hold the floor by standing and speaking nonstop. It was an act of protest, not a means to stop a senate majority from passing bills. Until recently.

What's stopped removing this rule in the past was both parties were afraid of what would happen if the other party got a 51 majority. But Project 2025/Maga isn't worried about that. They are going to deconstruct the united states in ONE TERM if they control all branches of government. They have the supreme court. They have the White House. They have the Senate. We're just waiting to see if they have the House. If they do, then no one is safe.

0

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

Oh my lord. Didn’t the Dems have control of the senate, house and presidency? What happened with them? I didn’t see a national gun ban.

7

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

The Dems were gutless and afraid of breaking Senate tradition. They should've fixed the supreme court when they had the power.

Do you think these "Republicans" will hesitate?

2

u/johnhtman Nov 06 '24

A gun ban would require amending the Constitution.

2

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

A full on ban, yes. However, limiting ammunition banning certain models has actually happened.

Either way my point is this is all fear mongering.

0

u/johnhtman Nov 07 '24

Ammunition is equally protected as firearms themselves are. And it's not fear mongering, many Democrats treat gun rights the same way Republicans treat abortion or voting rights.

12

u/dr_analog Nov 06 '24 edited 17d ago

[u/dr_analog is now banned: non-leftist political opinions are not allowed here]

9

u/qalpi Nov 06 '24

Fillibuster is gone. Problem solved.

5

u/TraditionalHunt2488 Nov 06 '24

They used to need 60 votes in the senate to do that.

Fixed it.

2

u/Z0ooool Nov 06 '24

People please remember this before you let people soak you in despair.

4

u/cassienebula Nov 06 '24

we need trigger laws to protect reproductive rights - namely abortion, contraception, and ivf, etc - and enshrine it into law. add to that lgbt rights, education, everything that project 2025 wants to destroy.

3

u/TNJCrypto Nov 06 '24

Everything but guns is on the table, trust that

3

u/Qu1pster Nov 06 '24

Gonna have to start burning some churches at that point.

2

u/DearGood3662 Nov 09 '24

While I think it would be a rather perilous move for the Republican party to try and push something like that through, what with such a ban being SO unpopular with like over HALF of the country, I would say it is possible they might try to go through with it anyway.

In my personal opinion, I think it would be a party ending move to push such a thing. By party ending, I mean that people will be so dissatisfied with such a decision like that, that whatever support they gained, they will lose HEAVILY in future election cycles.

They will lose the trust in the people with how loose their party has been talking on the matter of abortion. Half faced.

I feel if they reached for an outright ban on abortion, before a society hasn't had the chance to change its social norms of their own volition, it will alienate too many people.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 09 '24

I agree with that. To be honest I think almost anything the Republicans do over the next two years is likely to lose them one or both houses of the legislature. The main thing that people seemed to site for voting for Trump was the economy. I think the Republicans are likely to improve the economy a great deal for the wealthiest Americans, but nothing they’ve proposing is going to improve life for working class people. The Tarrifs Trump wants might, over a long enough timeline, bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, but they’ll also make virtually everything more expensive. Mass deportations will further drive up food costs because it will simply mean fewer farm workers to move food from fields to market- US born citizens aren’t gonna replace them in droves because we’ve seen before that they don’t when migrant labor goes away. And the cuts they’re proposing to government programs will hurt a ton of their own voters. So I think they’re destined to lose big in the midterms for much the same reason the Dems lost this election, for the reason the pendulum always swings back and forth so hard every election cycle in the US- most voters want a government that helps them to struggle less, and both parties are beholden to the interests of a small number of people whose pursuit of wealth demands that everyone else struggle. An abortion ban would be, as you said, extremely unpopular and deepen the losses they’re likely to suffer in two years.

1

u/DearGood3662 Nov 09 '24

I think your forecasts seem very sound. As far as the immigration issue, I will come to that in a moment.

In my view, abortion, regardless of how everyone views it, I think we can all agree that it has been a sort of normal thing that's been around for too long to suddenly shift so quickly to an outright ban, that won't meet with absolute political hostility.

I think that abortion, even though I've become more squeamish about it in recent years, needs to just dissolve away on its own. It should be willingly disfavored that virtually all clinics are out of business.

One thing I think conservatives on a LOCAL state level could pass, would be the return of Seduction Laws. Most people don't know what those are, but in modern slang terms, it would make being a "fuckboy/girl" illegal. All of those men who promise women that they will marry them and stay forever, would have to stick to their word once they get a woman pregnant.

I think promising to stay with a guy or chick only to turn around and break that violation is a form of psychological abuse. And this leads to a lot of women going to get an abortion, because most guys don't want to deal with the relationship dynamics that go into dealing with other people's kids.

Our society has kind of normalized this so much that we don't recognize it as something that causes real world harm. Or we think it's "just one of those things". Now look at us. We ruined each other romantically. This is where we are, and I feel we are sick without even realizing it.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 09 '24

Ok, you’ve lost me. That is an incredibly simplistic view on the reason women need abortions. For one, women have casual sex with men all the time with no pretense that the man is gonna stick around if she gets pregnant, and sometimes that leads to an unwanted pregnancy. And women often accidentally get pregnant within the context of a loving marriage or committed relationship but aren’t ready or willing to be a parent. Women sometimes get pregnant and want to have a baby initially but either medical, financial, or personal circumstances lead them to the decision not to continue with the pregnancy. And sometimes a woman gets pregnant and finds out after that the father, despite being willing to stick around, is abusive or otherwise not someone she wants to be linked with the rest of her life either in a relationship or coparenting arrangement.

All of these women will always need safe access to abortion. The way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and the two main things that the government can do to actually drive unwanted pregnancy down are 1) fund robust sex ed nation wide, since educating kids about contraception as they are entering puberty is proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies among teens and 2) make it so having a kid isn’t such a terrifying proposition financially by reforming our healthcare system, bolstering and expanding access to programs like SNAP and WIC, publicly funding childcare programs so parents can work without spending an enormous chunk of their income on care for their kids, and reigning in the housing speculation that is driving up the cost of home ownership and rent. Unfortunately the Republican party wants to do the opposite of all of that AND ban abortion, which will both mean women dying from lack of access to healthcare and a surge in children being raised by people who aren’t equipped to be parents and kids being shoved into the already over-taxed and often abusive foster care system.

1

u/DearGood3662 Nov 09 '24

I just want to say that I think abortion should be left to the choice of the woman rather than the state or federal government.

If someone doesn't want to have a kid and they wish to get an abortion, then by all means.

I am just bringing forth ideas that will reduce the abortion rates by a change in societal behavior, and for a good reason. Women would still have access to abortion if needed, but also the abortion rate overall will drop, which I think should be in everyone's interests.

I was just talking about one specific dynamic that we as a society should tackle that will reduce not just abortion, but also societal breakdown. When guys deceive women by pretending to want to be with them in the long term and raise a family....and then they do a "hit it and quit it" move.

They "ghost" these women and leave them in a situation where they are now pregnant and probably also got an STD, because odds are, the man who betrayed them belongs to the streets.

This shit needs to stop, and I think it warrants that we bring back Seduction Laws into our legal code. This objectifying behavior causes women to become psychologically hurt from being betrayed, and they have to go through the emotional and physical distress of getting an abortion.

As far as the unwanted pregnancy arguments I hear from Republican men, I think women have been receiving far too much demands without any sort of discussion on male behavior. You guys don't want abortions? Fine. Tell your men to stop acting like street walkers and sticking it in everything they fucking see, then.

After all, it takes two to tango.

1

u/sumitbafna27 Nov 07 '24

What are you basing that on? Trump has been very firm reproductive rights being states’ domain. A national ban was neither part of his campaign agenda nor mentioned in his speeches.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 08 '24

Trump’s word isn’t worth shit, and he’s backed by an evangelical movement that absolutely wants to ban abortion nationwide wide.

1

u/trippiehippiegreenz Nov 07 '24

That's not possible, the overruling of roe v wade gave the ultimate decision to the states

1

u/Sklibba Nov 08 '24

You don’t actually understand how the government works, very cool that you’re allowed to vote anyway.

Roe V Wade set precedent that said laws prohibiting abortion violate the right to privacy that the court believed was established in the 14th amendment. Roe being struck down allowed states to enact laws that ban abortions. But it ALSO removes protection against the Federal government establishing an abortion ban. There is absolutely nothing stopping a national abortion ban at this point if Republicans can rally enough votes for it. Whether or not they can is another question.

1

u/trippiehippiegreenz Nov 09 '24

And yet trump is giving the decision to the states... so what exactly are you going on about?

1

u/Sklibba Nov 09 '24

Trump’s word doesn’t mean shit.

1

u/DrunkPyrite Nov 08 '24

And outlaw of birth control.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 08 '24

So while I do think a national abortion ban is on the table, I still think it’s unlikely to pass because a substantial number of republicans I think understand just how unpopular that would be among even their own constituents.

Outlawing birth control might be on the wishlist of the religious extremists that make up a portion of the GOP’s base, but I think virtually everyone in Congress can understand that it would be a bridge too far for most voters and would result in a bloodbath for the GOP during the midterms. They’d have to fully dismantle the Democratic process and establish full authoritarian control before they could institute anything that draconian without jeopardizing their own power.

1

u/zultan91 Nov 09 '24

That would be a grave infringement on states' rights and probably wouldnt happen. If roe v wade was still up it would probably be easier to make abortion federally illegal but now that it's up to the states, states like oregon, washington and california for example more than likely wont have that issue.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 09 '24

You sound incredibly confused. Roe established precedent that abortion is protected by the 14th amendment , which the court said guarantees citizens a right to privacy that would be violated by abortion bans, and so prevented the states and the federal government from banning abortions. So no, it would not be easier to make abortion illegal federally if Roe v Wade was still up. Reversing Roe didn’t toss the issue to the states exclusively- it removed the barrier against states AND the Federal government banning abortions. ETA: a federal abortion ban wouldn’t violate states rights any more than any other federal law, since all federal laws supersede state laws. Republicans used “states rights” as an excuse to want to overturn Roe, but that doesn’t mean they’ll actually stick to that when considering a national abortion ban.

2

u/zultan91 Nov 09 '24

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Personally I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice. I dont think anybody should be able any one person what they can or cant do with their own body in ANY situation, whether I personally agree with what they do or not.

With that said I believe even Republicans know how important a topic like abortion is to the point that I just dont see them having the stones to institute a nationwide abortion ban because they know how decisive that would be and it would only please a relatively small group of people, and it wouldnt be very easy to enforce. I could be wrong but any woman whether they're right, left, atheist or even religious(whether they want to publicly admit it or not) want bodily autonomy. And I dont think Republicans are willing to give up the smaller amount of that demographic that they're still holding on to.

Again I could be wrong but to put it in the cruelest way i believe a nationwide abortion ban would be too much of a net negative for republicans and any future race they wanted to have a reasonable chance of winning.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 09 '24

I think you’re right that they know how unpopular a national abortion ban would be, and they are unlikely to sacrifice seats in the house and senate in the ‘26 midterms to get it passed. It’s much more likely that they’ll stick to passing policies that will be harder for the Dems to rally against in two years.

1

u/FranticToaster Nov 10 '24

It's not. Trump's platform (indeed the whole R platform) is "leave abortion to the states." It will be really easy to turn the country on the Republicans if it goes differently after he takes office.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 13 '24

I think it’s unlikely that they’ll pass a national abortion ban for that reason, but that doesn’t mean it’s not on the table. And honestly I think the Republicans are doomed to lose big in the midterms. Aside from Trump’s core supporters that actually want to impose their atavistic religious beliefs on the country and see him hurt people they don’t like, people voted for Trump because they are hurting economically and wanted a change since the Biden administration has been basically gaslighting people with statistics that paint a rosy picture but that don’t actually translate to people’s lives getting easier. However virtually nothing Trump or the GOP want to do is going to improve life for working class people, and much of it (like Trump’s idiotic tariffs) will immediately make like harder.

0

u/L_Ardman Nov 06 '24

They have a slim majority, and some Republicans are pro-choice. They don’t have the votes.

0

u/walkuphills Nov 06 '24

Just like the national ban on cannabis?

-2

u/Lionel_Pritchard Nov 06 '24

Not likely. You need to get your head out of the mainstream media’s ass.

-1

u/WhiskeyTangoFoxy Nov 06 '24

You still need 60 votes to pass it. They may be able to get it to the table but they won’t have the votes to pass it through congress.

-1

u/catchmygrift Nov 06 '24

Don’t count on it. States still have rights and still have local voters. Trump himself said he wouldn’t pass it.

4

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

Trump’s word isn’t worth shit. And states don’t have the right to supercede federal law. Like with cannabis, the federal government is choosing not to enforce federal law in states that allow legal cannabis, but the DEA absolutely could shift priorities and start busting cannabis growers and shops and states would have no legal ground to stop them. If abortion became a federal crime, state governments would have no grounds to stop the feds from enforcing it.

-1

u/TinyTerryJeffords Nov 06 '24

This is a bad take. Multiple states reaffirmed abortion access and Republicans didn’t campaign on it because it is a losing issue.

5

u/qalpi Nov 06 '24

But now they've been elected...

3

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

Exactly, Republicans are going to take this election as a sweeping mandate to push through the most extreme agenda items they can. It’s not a given that they’ll be able to get enough support within even their own party to pass a national abortion ban, but they’ll damn well try.

-2

u/Pretend-Art2049 Nov 06 '24

That is such a stupid take.

2

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

Yeah, just like it was a “stupid take” that we should worry that Gorsuch and Comey would overturn Roe V Wade.

1

u/Pretend-Art2049 Nov 06 '24

You got it. A decision even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought was terrible.

-6

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

Y’all need to stop the fear mongering. There won’t be a national abortion ban.

If you live in a red state, than I would certainly be more concerned. Even then, most of those states won’t lock you up for abortions.

Trumps stance is to leave that issue to the individual State.

16

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

People called it fear mongering when we were expressing concern that Roe V Wade might be overturned, and we now live in a country where women are literally dying from miscarriages due to abortion bans passed because that’s exactly what the Christianist extremists appointed by Trump did. What does it matter if they won’t “lock you up” for an abortion? The problem is that women who are pregnant are being denied life saving medical care when it might jeopardize the life of the fetus.

-7

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

Roe v Wade gave the power back to the states. I haven’t seen anyone dying here in Oregon over a Supreme Court ruling.

Also many of the states ending up adding lifetime protections on abortions even some republican states.

So again what you are talking about are a select few states where they are prosecuting woman over abortions.

It’s no different than the fear mongering over drag queens and them dancing on a strip Pole in front of kids. It was shoved down folks throat that all drag queens are chimo’s or weirdos.

Get off the media, they have you hooked.

5

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

Did I say Oregon had banned abortion? I said that people like you called it “fear mongering” to warn that Trump’s supreme court picks might roll back Roe V Wade. They ended up doing it and it’s killed women. So sorry if I simply ignore your insistence that it’s “fear mongering” to worry that these absolutely insane freaks on the right will push forward with their agenda and get a national abortion ban passed.

0

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

People like me? I think I’ve found your problem.

I don’t know why I am even engaging.

I just hope you and others wake up and put pressure on the Dems to change.

I feel like this could have been an easy win. But hey if you are happy with the result, keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi and an insane freak. It sure worked for the democrats.

4

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

People who believe the creator of the universe wants them to pass laws to micromanage the personal decisions of their fellow citizens in accordance with their particular interpretation of an ancient text are, by definition, insane freaks. I’m not lumping you in with them, but when I say “people like you” I’m referring those who are still willfully remaining blind to the threat that Christianist extremism poses to this country.

0

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

The reality is, we aren’t changing those types. And I think it’s overstated how many of those types exist. Any of my friends who identify as Republicans, aren’t voting that way because of religious views, they are more worried about the rising cost of daily life. All of them would be very upset if abortion is what this administration focuses on.

The fact that they didn’t run on this and have stated immigration and the economy as the focal points gives me hope.

1

u/Sklibba Nov 06 '24

If a man who has as much as said he wants unlimited power who is backed by powerful religious extremists says he’s going to improve the economy and people vote for him because of that, they are still electing a wannabe dictator willing to serve the interests of religious extremists even if that’s not why they voted for him.

→ More replies

50

u/EpidonoTheFool Nov 06 '24

Looking at 2020 and now a lot of people just didn’t vote this election for whatever reason, trump actually has less votes now than he did in 2020. What a bummer, I’m hoping next election we will get someone younger who will actually still be alive during the future of the u.s not some privileged sex abusing scoundrel in golden diapers with failing cognitive abilities

26

u/LalaLane850 Nov 06 '24

My own mother was a non voter this election for the first time in her life. It makes me sick. A non vote IS A VOTE! We can’t discuss such things at all.

31

u/EpidonoTheFool Nov 06 '24

I think alot of the people that voted Dem in 2020 didn’t want to vote for Kamala and just didn’t vote this election. I’ll admit I’m not a democrat or a republican, but this is the first time I actually did vote. Trump has done nothing but fear monger and divide the u.s ever since 2016 he’s just not a good look for a leader of a country he is a huge pile of shit bigger than the ones on his chest, been a scoundrel since he was born. I cannot believe he won simply because people who voted in 2020 didn’t vote this year he’s absurd, and with all the natural disasters in Florida how can those knuckleheads vote for him ?

2

u/RottenSpinach1 Nov 06 '24

So you're saying she didn't vote at all, or just not for president? There are still state/local folks down ticket that could use support.

3

u/LalaLane850 Nov 06 '24

Good point. I know she didn’t vote for president but I’m not sure about the rest.

10

u/L_Ardman Nov 06 '24

I agree after looking at the numbers. There’s not increased support for Trump this time around it’s that Harris supporters just didn’t show. Disappointment about the economy or Palestine or whatever.

5

u/EpidonoTheFool Nov 06 '24

Kinda interesting trump won not because the majority likes him he has roughly the same but less supporters as last time, but because a lot of voters didn’t vote he won I’m guessing a lot people couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Kamala so chose to sit it out. I really hope next election though we get a president at least in their 50s.

6

u/ezirao Nov 06 '24

This country hates women. They've proven it over and over and over again. There's no way they could possibly let a woman be president.

2

u/Go_Actual_Ducks Nov 06 '24

Next election will be Vance, since presidents are limited to two terms

5

u/Dry-Committee-9395 Nov 06 '24

For now.. I think Vance will become president before 2028 though

23

u/CapnAnonymouse Nov 06 '24

I wish I agreed with this, but given Project 2025 and its aims to eliminate the FDA and rebrand the Department of Public Health, not to mention the ability to work + find a job to afford one without DEI...it's looking bleak.

I'm actually calling my provider today, to see if I can re-up my IUD ASAP. I don't trust these chucklefucks to actually wait to take office until January.

I'm beyond terrified for the rest of the world, too. Ukraine + the rest of formerly Soviet Europe, for starters.

12

u/DragonInWaiting Nov 06 '24

This country is, sadly, too misogynistic to elect a woman into the White House. Unfortunately, this will happen for at least another fifty to sixty years.

6

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

This is fucking Biden's fault, not Kamala.

1

u/AbbreviationsFun5448 Nov 06 '24

She's a lawyer for God's sake & she couldn't make a halfway cogent case for being elected President. All she did was talk in circles. It's entirely her fault!

3

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

She shouldn't have been the nominee in the first place is my point. If we'd had a genuine Democrat primary someone better at campaigning would've been the democratic nominee. And all that is squarely Biden's fault.

5

u/Fluffybottoms Nov 07 '24

Being a woman had nothing to do with why she lost.

1

u/bksi Nov 06 '24

If you look at gender stats and voting (NYT) it's men that got the orange execrement elected.

2

u/DragonInWaiting Nov 06 '24

And those men, and their wives, are the misogynistic types who don't believe a woman can be capable running the country.

3

u/bksi Nov 06 '24

It's not even capability, it's "women's place is in the home" type of crap. All that noise about getting rid of no-fault divorce, lowering the marriage age, and of course, keeping women pregnant against their will. Yikes.

-4

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

However it’s really not. Perhaps in the Bible Belt.

The reality is the dems put up a subpar candidate, he delivered the worst debate ever. They had to scramble to replace him.

This is the result of that. Quit blaming men, quit blaming the GOP. This loss lies solely on the shoulders of the Democratic Party. That fact that you can’t recognize that says a lot.

2

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

Psssh, don't blame men, I'm totally blaming a man. It's all Biden's fault!

-1

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

Biden is specific person who happens to be a man. Blaming all men including Biden is a generalization. For a party that claims equality, they are really adept at generalizations and biases.

3

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

Ohhh, you're actually happy about this. 🥲 Did you know project 2025 has concentration camps for trans people in its list of things it wants to do? Hi I'm trans!

2

u/AllDamDay7 Nov 06 '24

The opposite of happy. My hope was this would galvanize the democrats and get them realizing a strategy of name calling and alienation cost them this election. Instead they are going full steam ahead with fear mongering and name calling.

Apparently they put up the perfect candidate, ran the perfect campaign, the party itself never does anything wrong and is perfect in every little way.

It’s just wild that folks like you can see all the mistakes the GOP makes, yet are blind to the mistakes the Dems make. I just don’t get it.

I am not saying leave the Dems, I am saying hold them accountable and make them better so they have a better chance in 4 years. Otherwise you’ll be feeling the same way you are today.

→ More replies

1

u/bigjakefhecake Nov 06 '24

In reading of project 2025 there is no mention of that.

1

u/coraythan Nov 06 '24

It was a joke. When life feels bleak and I'm scared I make more jokes. Hey look it's another trait I adopted from Spider-Man when young!

1

u/bksi Nov 07 '24

Wait, did you miss the Project 2025 thing? That's misogynistic AF. At any rate there's lots of blame to be shared out. Folks that think a strong man in the White House is a good thing, Russian interference, don't-look-it'll-go-away voters, freekin' Musk whose "rule the world" ambitions are barely disguised. Middle America white voters, both men and women, esp. older folks. And yes, the Democratic Party should be renamed, TLTL or Too Little Too Late.

As an aside:

"That fact that you can’t recognize that says a lot."

Hmm, inflammatory, meant to put down the comment poster and end discussion. And why would you stuff that in there? Suggestion is a less confrontive stance can produce a better discussion and maybe lead to some new thoughts.

-1

u/Pretend-Art2049 Nov 06 '24

Hey! This is EUGENE OREGON we're talking about? Owr (the spelling 'our' is mysogynistic colial bigoted hatred) mottos is "Orange MAN Bad." We're too stupid to think critically and realistically and maybe, just maybe, realize Kamala Harris was the worse democratic nominee in the history of the party and had there actually been a primary, she would not have gotten the votes, but holding a primary would have stopped the DIE party from putting up another shitty candidate in lieu of a diversity candidate, which they can't have. AWFLs have taken control of the democratic party, and no one likes them.

By the way, I agree with you.

-2

u/Go_Actual_Ducks Nov 06 '24

That's exactly what so many people said about electing a (racialized as) black person, right before we elected Obama twice. Maybe rethink your pessimism.

5

u/PhishPigg Nov 07 '24 edited Nov 07 '24

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There's really no telling what this man is going to do once he takes power. The entire framework of this country is threatened. I mean, just look at January 6th... What I feel is not heartbreak or disbelief but pure, unadulterated fear, and I bet I am not alone.

Edit: typo

3

u/LalaLane850 Nov 07 '24

You’re definitely not alone. As the day has gone on and I’ve read and thought more, I am also very afraid.

2

u/Captn_Insanso Nov 06 '24

When shit hits the fan I’m going to be telling all of these assholes “we warned you!”

5

u/Temassi Nov 06 '24

Get your "don't blame me I voted for Harris" bumper sticker now

2

u/Illustrious-Dog-6236 Nov 06 '24

We need to get much better at telling people they’re dumb 😪

6

u/Dry-Committee-9395 Nov 06 '24

It doesn’t help. It just makes them more extreme. That is why we are where we are.

2

u/Illustrious-Dog-6236 Nov 06 '24

I mean in a tough love way

5

u/Dry-Committee-9395 Nov 06 '24

I know but that still doesn’t work. All we can do is try to educate them with factual, credible information and make them less dumb🤣

1

u/Illustrious-Dog-6236 Nov 06 '24

Yeah you’re right 😂

1

u/QueenLaQueefaRt Nov 06 '24 edited Nov 06 '24

Everyone is about to get much more poorer :/. My suggestion to all the ladies. Figure out if you want kids or not and then start acting accordingly. If your partner wants kids or won’t get a vasectomy and you don’t want kids, ya gotta figure that out.

Edit: not fear mongering but we are going to have an SC that is mostly Trump picks. They can change the rules on us. If you don’t want kids now is the time to figure that shit out between you and your partner.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '24

Normal people are not that stupid. We just have no competent political parties in this country so voters are adrift to figure out every minute detail of their lives with no explicit 'no strings attached' help.

1

u/Dilamin Nov 07 '24

They're going to fight tooth and nail to ban abortion nationwide. “Unlikely” is not the word.

1

u/hedge_raven Nov 08 '24

Our laws might be unlikely to change, however there will be nationwide ripple effects. Women crossing state lines for care, restrictions on reproductive medicine between states, IVF clinics in blue states getting overloaded, etc.

Just because it is unlikely that our laws will directly change (and I don’t necessarily agree with you there), doesn’t mean we won’t see a ripple here.

1

u/REDDITmusiv Nov 08 '24

I agree. Oregon has reproductive rights in place. Not to worry

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

[deleted]

1

u/LalaLane850 Nov 10 '24

Yes, more time has passed, more thinking, more reading. I’m wary.

0

u/rad_hombre Nov 07 '24

It’s a dem fuckup as much as anything. They’re totally disconnected from the working class, even going so far as to tell people to their faces “oh actually the economy is great! You just don’t get it!” He did better with Latinos than any other Republican in a half century. Truly a masterclass on how to lose.

0

u/RevolutionaryDuck389 Nov 07 '24

lol funny thing is id be saying the exact same thing if Harris got in... no I'm not a fan of trump either. Harris just seems fake AF.

0

u/laurasmilkshake Nov 07 '24

UNLIKELY?! PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE JOKING. One SA...and a pregnancy. The thousands on MEDICARE AND MEDICAID?! Unlikely is a fucking JOKE. EW.