Caller CONFRONTS ME Over Roe v Wade Slippery Slope

[@judi-spiers]

You are correct. Abbott already looking for ways to overturn public education (Plyler v. Doe)

[@marcuso.530]

David is right though, they're obviously going for those next. Is everyone forgetting that Florida pushed the "Don't say gay" bill? It's literally a matter of time. This is common sense.

[@fieldandstream9362]

Well my democrat friend said I wasn't allowed to say the word. He also dumped me in the street where I was abducted. Aren't sheep nice?

[@jimohara]

There was no “Don’t say gay” in the Bill. That’s making things up that aren’t there

[@marcuso.530]

@@fieldandstream9362 keep moving the goal post while these freaks take more of our rights away. Expected nothing less from a dog.

[@erichfiedler1481]

@@fieldandstream9362 pretty stupid story, like I'd believe that crap

[@J.D.M.R]

@@fieldandstream9362 so you hate democrats because you had a bad friend. Grow up.

[@Jaddaprog]

The caller is naive to think they don't have their eyes on gay marriage. "In the past few days I haven't seen that" . Because it will take years for them to find an incident to create a lawsuit out of to put through appeals to get the SC.

[@marcocappelli2236]

Naive of you to think that the GOP needs an incident to use as excuse.

[@mkself3231]

Republicans are too busy deflecting on who "leaked" the information other than the outrageous attack to take away women's right to choose.

[@MH-be6hr]

Caller is trolling.

[@DotHacker99]

Conservatives don't need an excuse to make heinous laws. They've been making unconstitutional laws that spit in the face of roe v wade for years. They make the laws and it takes many months for courts to strike down these laws. Hell the supreme court was SUPPOSE to put a hold on the Texas law until it could be properly looked at but they let it stay. These ppl are evil and will abuse and corrupt the whole legal and judicial system if it means turning the US into a theocracy and shoving their religion down our throats

[@Snakeye808]

@@marcocappelli2236 The upcoming Supreme Court decision is the excuse. It's crazy to think that Republicans, who strongly oppose same-sex marriage, would not use the decision to create laws against it. Their basis for opposing same-sex marriage is the exact same as their basis for opposing abortion: their ridiculous religious views.

[@TTRPGSarvis]

It's not a slippery slope if it's spelled out very clearly in the leaked opinion "We would also like to overturn these other opinions."

[@cacambo589]

Unless the caller foresaw the attack on Roe his prediction don't count for much.

[@willjapheth23789]

Foresaw? Dude the pro life movement has talked about Roe v wade for decades, no other ruling court is more contentious than roe v wade.

[@zogar8526]

And there already was movement toward removing gay marriage, though it came before this leak. But remember the law that would allow child marriages? A lot of people focused on that part of it, which is understandable, but the whole point of that bill was to stop gay marriage. And now they can go for an ever stronger bill to do that.

[@rekcusdoo]

Gay marriage has only been legal for 7 years. There has ALWAYS been a movement toward gay marriage being illegal.

[@zogar8526]

@@rekcusdoo That is exactly the point, they will be going after it, no way they will let it stand. They will be moving to make it illegal everywhere, based purely on their religion, and that isn't ok. Anyone who doesn't think they will be turning that over doesn't know what's going on. Again, the recent bill tor it in Ohio was it? I don't remember where it was, but they and other places will keep trying those types of bills to get it in front of the supreme court so they can get rid of it entirely.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Notice how everything you’re talking about is a law or bill? Which means it must be based by congress and ratified by the president... maybe you should try that with a federal abortion law, rather than relying on a interpretation from a court to legislate your preferred policies.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@J Ok... and why do you have an issue with a state going through their democratic process of legislating laws?

[@biggb3921]

@@ricardocabeza6006 well these are laws being created by people who are not impacted by them to target and harm people who structurally do not wield the political power to defend themselves and likely never will. To protect all people there have to be a set of common rights that apply to everyone that can be appealed to in these situations. That's what the Constitution and the courts are supposed to be there for. Legislatures can write laws, but people have the right to challenge those laws on the basis of their pre-established rights. It is a two-way street. Also, our political system, particularly federally, but locally as well is structurally terrible at reflecting the will of the people. Legislatures do things all the time that are not in line with public interest. Passing something doesn't by default make it the "will of the people". Anti-Abortion policies are a great example of that.

[@woolfwoolf]

If they can they will, don't be fooled.

[@lorimoore5589]

Steve, do you feel like "the right" has been focused on opposing LBGTQ rights? I personally hear it from them, probably more than Roe V Wade. I 100 % believe they want gay marriage to be up to the states.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Why don’t you support each state going through their democratic process of deciding how they’d like to govern their state? Why do you hate democracy?

[@luminousmoon86]

@@ricardocabeza6006 Because individual rights should not be subject to mob rule. Talk about a slippery slope. If we allowed states to just individually decide on individual rights, then slavery would still be legal in some places.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@ricardocabeza6006 when it comes to marriage, consensus among the states is important.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@luminousmoon86 So you don’t fully agree with the democratic process, and you want to inject your system of beliefs onto sovereign states. And we’re not talking about slavery here. Wow...

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@willjapheth23789 Why is consensus amongst the states on marriage important? Why is marriage even a government issue? Marriage is a religious ceremony, which makes it ironic homosexuals want to engage in a religious ceremony. So... what happened to separation of church and state?

[@themaestro3034]

If the basis of Roe is substantive due process, and the court is saying that they dont believe substantive due process exists, and there are other issues based in substantive due process, then those other issues are at threat. There is no slippery slope here: its logic.

[@allthingsconsideredaa]

@@whyamimrpink78 medical privacy is. Will you continue saying this is a state issue when states start mandating abortions?

[@themaestro3034]

@@whyamimrpink78 you dont know what substantive due process is. Why is it that conservatives always have an opinion even with absolutely no info on the topic?

[@themaestro3034]

@@whyamimrpink78 why dont you do some of that “own research” you guys cried about during the pandemic and look it up 🤦‍♂️

[@themaestro3034]

@@whyamimrpink78 “substantive due process” and it has everything to do with legalization of abortion. Is this really that hard a concept for you to grasp?

[@themaestro3034]

@@whyamimrpink78 why dont you look it up and find out. Im not about to waste my time teaching fundamentals of constitutional law to you.

[@rodney9114]

They’re already talking about bringing back “anti sodomy laws” and one republican have a statement about making interracial marriage a states decision.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Let’s pretend for a moment that interracial marriage was a state decision. Then all 50 states independently decide to allow interracial marriage. What would be the issue? Why are progressives so stuck on everything being regulated at the federal level?

[@willjapheth23789]

They as in the 700 club or other televangelist? Pro-life is one of the most powerful movements on the right, it's not even comparable. You need to talk to common conservatives.

[@marcuso.530]

@@willjapheth23789 Common conservatives are the ones voting for the child marriage bills in Tennessee, or electing that one guy who ADMITTED to killing his wife with breast cancer.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@marcuso.530 those are known as politicians. If you think your average conservative thinks child marriage is cool then you are lost.

[@robertaldaron4870]

@@willjapheth23789 Look at what's happening in Tennessee. A very red state.

[@EverettCDavis]

You're right, in the last couple days, no one has said they want to ban interracial marriage. Although, there was a senator who brought it up at Jackson's confirmation hearing. So it's out there. People are thinking about it.

[@rileyfuckingrifle]

Weird. 'Cos I've heard people worrying about it.

[@EverettCDavis]

@@rileyfuckingrifle Of course people are worrying about it. The caller doesn't seem to be worried about it, which is kinda silly. David concedes that no one has mentioned it in the last couple days. I'm not aware of any high profile political actors mentioning it in the last couple days. But that's just a silly concussion. It has been mentioned in the last couple months.

[@MrCromocrunch]

I’m sure some state senators would love to introduce bills to outlaw these things in their states.

[@DatAsuna]

Didn't we literally have a senator slip and say he wanted to ban interracial marriage covered on this show just a few weeks ago? lol And now Arizona and Tennessee senators calling to ban birth control.

[@jimohara]

And is that a popular opinion?

[@persephonekajira7269]

@@jimohara overturning Roe vs Wade isn't a popular opinion and it's still charging ahead. 🧠

[@jimohara]

@@persephonekajira7269 Sure, Overturning Roe vs Wade vs Overturning interracial marriage. One of these things has a substantial amount of support in the population and organizations that exist to advocate for that aim. The other doesn’t. You’ve some nerve, telling anyone else to use their 🧠. How about this for a compromise? Stop being ruled by your horrible black 🖤

[@DatAsuna]

@@jimohara elected officials and legislators saying it is a lot more important than some rando on twitter saying it.

[@willjapheth23789]

Clarence Thomas is in a interracial marriage. Looking at the fringes to fear monger about the future is almost the definition of slippery slope.

[@BoredBob]

"Haven't seen anything in that direction in several days" You mean like Tennessee's "Alternative Form of Marriage" bill? Or Texas state representative James White's statements regarding same sex marriage?

[@BoredBob]

@@based_yeoman9138 Might want to consider that it only takes one state (and there are PLENTY that lean in that direction) to pass a law similar to the one that went to SCOTUS for abortion in order for SCOTUS to over-turn "settled case law" to go to SCOTUS and do the exact same thing regardless of polls. Keep in mind that same sex marriage wasn't a federal law change it was a SCOTUS interpretation of existing law exactly like this is.

[@BoredBob]

@@based_yeoman9138 3 words... Texas, Tennessee, Florida. If you are counting on poll numbers I think you are deluding yourself.

[@BoredBob]

@@based_yeoman9138 You don't think that "Don't Say Gay" is the ending point I hope. It's more like the starting point of the legal agenda that is being moved forwards. Given the opportunity it's doubtful it'll stop at that. Polls in that regard are great. however, the people that make the laws don't exactly care about the poles as much as they care about their base and their agenda.

[@BoredBob]

@@based_yeoman9138 Basically... LOL

[@scotchegg867]

@@BoredBob "I generally agree with you that the anti groomer bill" anti groomer bill? the legislation the GOP is implementing is nothing of the sort. it's a bill designed to stigmatize, socially exclude and socially isolate lgbt youth

[@goittoog7563]

this caller is deluded to think all their favorite issues arent going to be on the table, its what they've been salivating for.

[@tylerhackner9731]

It will be a slippery slope for sure

[@gattaca5911]

"no major push" for reversing gay marriage? yep....only a bill in Florida that forbids gays from even saying the words "I'm gay and married"...wtf.

[@Chalk0073]

Nancy Collins' son, Steve from Chicago is right. Why would the religious zealots in the Supreme Court go after all the other stuff they hate now that they have the votes to do so. It makes no sense.

[@kgunthorpe]

If you are actually referring to Susan Collins, your comment is appropriately sarcastic and right on point. This kind of sentiment isn't naivety; it is stupidity. A big reason why we have a problem with this kind of reactionary conservativism actually succeeding is because of the nonchalant, muted response if moderates and progressives in response to this kind of BS. The caller literally doesn't see how his response is what lots of morons thought about the possibility of Roe being overturned. And that's why a lot of them didn't vote for Clinton because they didn't like her as much as Obama (a difference of millions of votes that cost her the 2016 election) or voted for left-wing 3rd party candidates like Jill Stein who had no chance of winning "out of principle." I wonder what it will take for these relatively blase dummies to understand the danger that NOW exists to American democracy.

[@bigalshotsauce]

Hurry up Leticia James, put the orange weasel behind bars

[@jimohara]

Isn’t that wound up with no charges now?

[@J.D.M.R]

@@jimohara nope

[@persephonekajira7269]

@@jimohara 🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴

[@cowboyhank456]

I think it's _very_ valid to point out the slippery slope strawman in all of this, since this is so often what "we" accuse hypocritical conservatives/republicans of when people argue for anything they consider as socialism, or LGBTQ rights. *But* , it's also very important to realize that a lot of these people have indicated this is something they're interested in, so while it is just talk for now, we need to take this seriously because we saw what just happened

[@chrisemmerson2742]

A year ago they said "roe v wade" is settled law...

[@bwicklander]

Weren't we silly believing them. :(

[@powbobs]

@@bwicklander I never did. Conservatives always lie.

[@pompelmostique]

Caller Steve is seriously sheltered/delusional if he doesn't see gay marriage and marriage equality as being at risk.

[@anna8328]

fully agree

[@nidodson]

There absolutely is rumbling about ending same sex marriage and contraceptive bans, with only a whisper by the most extreme about interracial marriage. They are absolutely going to go after same sex marriage.

[@savagebear4374]

Already in the process in Tennessee as we speak.

[@vonnikon]

Contraception ban is already on the table. Louisiana is about to vote on a bill which would classify fertilized eggs as people. That bill would outlaw several forms of contraception.

[@MH-be6hr]

That caller is naive. He's probably a troll.

[@jimohara]

David is trying to make as much political capital out of this leak as possible to galvanize his audience further. Like he always does about everything

[@gagaplex]

Alito's reasoning about deeply historically founded rights basically ensures that this will be used to remove other "newer" rights.

[@mercedesvargas8823]

Your right David this is only the beginning 🙌

[@beratnabodhi]

Shapiro is already calling for gay marriage next, so, he's just wrong.

[@duanebidoux6087]

Contraceptives are already being added to the anti-abortion laws of several southern states: the IUD is being added in Louisiana to be made illegal. Also, the "day after" pill in several states.

[@truthbeknown2022]

I'm curious, why hasn't 18 US Code 1507 been enforced? It's not a questionable Civil War era law, it's specific, and happening now!

[@seanm2511]

In 2016 how likely did you think it was that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned?

[@jimohara]

Inevitable

[@przytulanka1979]

Hillary Clinton warned us about it.

[@seanm2511]

@@jimohara I see. That's why you can come on here and claim "we" are the same. That "we" have the same values. And that both parties are equal. We aren't. We don't. They aren't.

[@jimohara]

@@seanm2511 Well, I’m not American but you must have picked me up wrong. ‘We’ are all equal but the supporters of different parties in America have different values. Clearly. In fact, I would go as far as saying “we are all equal” is only in regard to the law and in the eyes of God. There’s good on both sides (to quote) but there’s also bad people on both sides. Bad people are not the equal to good people in all respects any more than I’d be the equal of LeBron on a basketball court.

[@seanm2511]

@@jimohara Im not American either, so we DO have something in common. As to the rest, I have no respect for your opinion whatever. Guessing by the amount I instinctively dislike you, that you're from East Belfast, but Im likely wrong there.

[@robertaldaron4870]

There is no reason or rationale to dissuade these people from their broadcasted goals. I was recently in a debate over this issue with a hard right winger who, after being shown the legal, medical, moral, and ethical inconsistencies of his position by myself and others', then proceeded to then tell one of us who was from the UK to "mind his own GD business" simply because he wasnt from the US. While simultaneously advocating for the government sanctioned interference into hundreds of millions of womens' lives. The irony and sheer, flagrant hypocrisy of this being utterly lost on him. 🙄

[@joeysanchez5094]

I don't think gay marriage or other abortion related laws is out of the realm of possibility, interracial marriage seems on the extreme side to target.

[@StormcastMarine]

@@based_yeoman9138 banning abortion has 19% support, how's that for the Overton window :)

[@willjapheth23789]

@@StormcastMarine 19% is a complete ban, stop being dishonest. Roe v wade is opposed by 29%, a very motivated 29%.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@based_yeoman9138 you are indeed based.

[@StormcastMarine]

@@whyamimrpink78 about two dozen states have trigger laws that would take effect, banning abortion, when roe v wade is overturned. Always happy to educate.

[@StormcastMarine]

@@based_yeoman9138 You can't find a poll in the last 50 years that supports banning abortion, that's how clear cut it is.

[@pfeiffdog0811]

Being a white man with a black wife the interracial marriage thing is near and dear. Would be interesting to know Clarence Thomas position should that actually get challenged

[@rekcusdoo]

They'd never go after interracial marriage since Trump is in an interracial marriage. Gay marriage, on the other hand....

[@aaronsande]

What's the fucking point of arguing what he's arguing?

[@gagaplex]

I'll agree with the caller that getting rid of interracial marriage is much later down the line, but if they could, they would. Gay marriage comes far earlier. Step by step, they'll go.

[@ericw9702]

In 1992, Ginsburg noted how Roe was an example of how "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable." in essence disagreeing with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor, and not a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Or... instead of searching for the right phrase to reference in the constitution to make your argument work. Use the constitutional process of congress legislating a law... what a concept!

[@mackswellgg]

@@ricardocabeza6006 omygod i thought you were trolling in a past comment but nope, just conceded. RBG damn near predicted this to the decimal point. Fucking sad.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@mackswellgg I really don’t give a f**k about this issue. But can you please stop trying to use the Supreme Court to legislate? And that’s exactly what Roe v. Wade is.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@mackswellgg where in the constitution does it say you can restrict 3rd trimester abortions but not 1st trimester abortions? Roe vs wade was clearly the judges trying to make what they thought was sensible policy into law. Like the other dude said, you should use legislation for that.

[@mackswellgg]

@@willjapheth23789 and the attempted abolishment of the precedent Roe sets is fundamental regression to the exact time period that the constitution was written in so refer to Article: MY Subsection: NUTS for full context.

[@Tony29103]

They LITERALLY said it in their opinion...

[@sstephkate86]

Doesn't matter to the conservatives they are so stupid.

[@daowest]

Alito used the exact same reasoning in his dissent to the Obergefell ruling that he does in this ruling. They will never stop.

[@basketballsteve54]

The caller is delusional if he doesn't think the conservative justices are complete against same sex marriage and would be delighted to have a case brought that would afford them the opportunity to overturn same sex marriage it's not a time frame argument it's about now having a decision that that provides the legal underpinning (not specifically in the constitution and not historically rooted) that will allow them the excuse to do what their hearts desire.

[@willjapheth23789]

This same court literally just told us that discriminating against gay and trans people is not acceptable and is protected on the basis of sex. You seem like the delusional one.

[@SweetHooligan1848]

And people carry on sleep walking into the abyss............

[@shelbyengelhardt3065]

If these people don't like R W then they need to help feed these kids have medical care and pay for medicine if need to have how about food more money. These Republicans don't know what they have done YET!!!!

[@willjapheth23789]

That would be a great argument against an abortion ban law, not pretending abortion is protected by the constitution.

[@nyxskids]

This is not the end. Why would they stop? It's better to assume they want to revert all the way back to a pre civil war society than to unrealistically think they might stop with Roe.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

Bad time to point out the antebellum south was a Democratic south, while Lincoln was a republican?...

[@nyxskids]

@@ricardocabeza6006 Considering the huge swap of stances in the mid 20th century, that point is irrelevant.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@nyxskids There was never a “swap” that’s just misinformation. Follow the history... Slavery and segregation were democrat policies, that were in effect until the civil rights movement. Robert Byrd was a Democrat Senator from WV who spoke for 13 hours in opposition of the civil rights act. Robert Byrd contributed to serve as a Democrat Senator until his death in 2010. So when exactly did the parties swap?

[@nyxskids]

@@ricardocabeza6006 they as a party began to shift gears right around the civil rights era. That one anomaly doesn't refute a point about entire parties. There are literal recordings that are easily accessible and confirmed as authentic by experts and even some of the people themselves of the highest Republicans talking about how to cloak racism in rhetoric and policies. The loss of power by the civil rights act in what had been the Democratic party left existing groups that would lose the most power easy to manipulate with members that would vote how their leaders told them they should. In the 70s Evangelical churches went from pro choice or simply not having an opinion to suddenly and staunchly anti choice. They went from largely not caring to being anti gay somewhere in there too. People that voted in no definitely set way suddenly all voted Republican because the point of the Republican party stopped being progress and became about power. Power corrupts. That's just a simple rule of human nature. This left a vacuum in the power dynamic to tap into the more forward moving social movements, and the Democrats slowly too too too slowly, especially compared to the sudden though purposely veiled shift with Republicans, towards progress and moving the country forward. The change was not equal & it didn't happen at the same rate, you could even argue that the Democrats never fully moved left, but an honest political analysis will show that the Republicans have been going farther and farther and farther right and up on the political compass. (As a guide to the compass tool used in political analysis and theory: right is conservative and up is authoritarian, left is socialism with a small s meaning the philosophical theory and not what governments have sometimes erroneously self identified as to trick citizens, and down moves to less and less government oversight until ending in anarchy. There is not really such a thing as conservative anarchy but there's also not really such a thing as authorization progressivism and certainly no space for it if socialist theory were applied the way it's philosophy dictates.) Democrats if averaged out are maybe just left of center and on the line, not heading towards authoritarianism or anarchy. Let me see if I can't sketch out the difference between the two on that compass using dashes and stuff. P | Authoritarian. | C R | | | O O | | r | N G | | | S R | ---------------d-|------------------| E E | | | R S | | | V S | | | A IVE | Anarchy | TIVE I'm a little too busy fixing my bathroom sink to look up the official terms and just used ones you might be familiar with. I'm going by memory in hopes of giving you an avenue of political research and nuance to explore for yourself. Knowing is half the battle! Good luck with your googling if you do run with this info and look into it yourself. My opinion is that past politics doesn't help me right now. So I'm accepting the parties as they are. I don't really care much anymore about who they once were. I used to love catching bugs and classifying them for fun. These days I build furniture and sew my own clothes and don't really care about bugs anymore unless they're eating my new veggie garden. I'm no longer a bug collector so I probably couldn't help anyone with that. However what I have gotten at least decently good at like building furniture could have benefits to others. I wouldn't ask current Democrats how to get me going in their party as it looked like in the 50s or whatever and expect to get help towards that hypothetical goal and the same would go for Republicans. Political history is interesting. It's extraordinarily helpful to have a comprehensive understanding of the realities that got us here. But right now I'm just focused on my neighborhood and voting defensively.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@nyxskids Wow... that was a lot to type out and give zero historical examples of the parties switching. Since Robert Byrd was apparently an anomaly. Was MLK being a republican also an anomaly? Was it also an anomaly that the south desegregated as a new social change occurred, which was represented in a shift towards republicans, as democrats supported segregation and the public did not?

[@altrag]

The caller needs some patience. That was just a draft decision. The final official decision won't be released for probably a few weeks yet. Once the paint has dried, we'll likely see some of the "movement" toward other atrocities the caller is claiming isn't happening. And there's already been an alarming number of Republicans starting to "joke" about some of the other things David was concerned about. Perhaps not enough to call it a "movement" yet, but certainly enough to be suggestive of their plans for future movement.

[@johnspence8141]

This caller is delusional. The republicans are SMART, they know to move their agenda as a team inch by inch.

[@Dylanesque]

Power and control. That's all this is about. Power and control.

[@neilsailing]

I sometimes wonder if some of these ' pro life' people have ever been further than their grandma's underpants drawer when it comes to people's real lives.

[@Mike-jv4rz]

I’m definitely pro life… But exceptions need to be made for medical issues of endangerment to mother- or issues with baby. Also for rape and incest. My issue is with careless people and repeat offenders. Unfortunately they make up a huge number of cases. Hope this makes sense 🇺🇸

[@allthingsconsideredaa]

@@Mike-jv4rz why are you willing to terminate a pregnancy in one situation and not the other? I'm assuming you think the life is special and important and deserves preservation, correct me if I'm wrong. So what makes it less worthy of preservation in the circumstance of rape?

[@neilsailing]

Enough of your sanctimonious BS Mike if a man got pregnant you would be screaming about your sacred rights..and there would be an abortion clinic....in every bar and burger joint. between Portland Maine and Oregon.@@Mike-jv4rz

[@mackswellgg]

@@Mike-jv4rz repeat abortions can also happen for a WIDE variety of reasons, I still don’t get AT ALL where this argument is coming from. It just seems like lazy hateful thinking. Like, you’re just assuming that there are more than half of women getting abortions that enjoy it or something. And access to contraceptives and better sex education would lower those numbers even more. Aren’t YOU the lazy one for not trying to think of another solution and instead saying “Nahhhhh you fucked up you gotta raise a child in squalor now”??????

[@mackswellgg]

@@Mike-jv4rz Conservatives aren’t advocating for programs to feed starving kids or elevate the living conditions of orphanages, so WHERE are you at??

[@tommylawrence4794]

They thought the Dems were coming after their guns. Turns out its just the Pubs wanting their condoms 😂

[@dbloyd2]

I don't know what to think of all of this. I am in the middle of a lot of these issues. I hope it all works out and people will find a solution.

[@powbobs]

What do you mean in the middle? How is there even a middle to this atrocity?

[@dbloyd2]

@@powbobs I am neither on the Right or Left. For example, take exercise to lose weight. One side will say "Don't bother exercising at all, just focus on diet". Another side will say "Exercise all the time, dont' worry about food". Neither is a good strategy. This is the same as politics with this left / right crap.

[@sstephkate86]

Dude must be a shaperio fan

[@MH-be6hr]

He's trolling.

[@thomasgriffiths6758]

It's funny how they can't fathom a slippery slope argument on the Right but when it comes to guns that is their only argument.

[@mackswellgg]

No it isn’t the only argument. And by the way, the slopes aren’t so slippery when a country has more than 1 gun for each man woman and baby within its borders. Not so slippery when the country CONSISTENTLY polls at over 50% advocating for MORE STRICT gun laws. Lotta hogs in these threads lately, I hope you guys keep watching. David is respectful, but there are a lot of people sick and tired of this exact comment every other week. Get new material.

[@thomasgriffiths6758]

@@mackswellgg I agree we should have stricter gun laws I don't think you really read my comment or else you just ignorantly ignored it I'm talking about how they think any gun laws means confiscating all guns comprende?

[@mackswellgg]

Yeah that’s my bad, I have been in blind rage lefty mode for a couple days. 100% mistook your comment for the exact opposite. I’ll time myself out

[@e.pluribusunum7916]

Ah...the "I don't care about this unless it affects me directly" crowd. If Roe goes, that's it. Game over.

[@keithferris9574]

You just hit exactly the reason for the horrible voter apathy in America. The people are going to wake up from their comfortable coddled lives to find a radically different country.

[@e.pluribusunum7916]

@@keithferris9574 I don't actually blame most Americans. Voter suppression is a very real thing in most states, plus the Electoral College that, while fair in theory, in reality gives corn more votes than humans. Add to that the US's obsession with mass incarceration (i.e. legal slavery), income inequality that is at "chopping the heads of French nobility" levels, the fact that most news outlets are controlled by the uber-rich, and a sustained campaign against any kind of social welfare that has brought us to this point. That being said, I still get pissed at people who are in the same sinking boat as the rest of us who pretend like they are somehow better. Edit: punctuation.

[@alanmacification]

It's all part of the " Wedge Strategy ".

[@jimgray335]

This is just the beginning

[@ericbutler1557]

They’re coming for Blue Chew next!!

[@MrSoonerCal]

Slippery slope? Like when a political party takes away bodily autonomy from over half the population in America? THAT slippery slope?

[@raiden031]

Are you talking about the fact that my son is legally required to sacrifice his life in war if called upon? Or people being forced to inject needles into their body to receive chemicals that have had zero long term trials for?

[@MGZWarrior]

Steve is wrong. They absolutely will try to go after gay marriage after they finish their work overturning Roe. Why he thinks otherwise is a mystery to me

[@harlenkelly7331]

Why would they NOT ban interracial marriage/gay marriage? This dude is delusional.

[@KuariThunderclaw]

I mean.. there's plenty of reasons for them NOT to. Better question is why would you not believe them when they say they're are aiming to do so? Like politicians lie about a lot of things. But this isn't the kind of thing that falls in that usual category. They'll lie about why they want it, lie about the people involved, but when they promote these kinds of things? They are never lying about wanting to do it.

[@raiden031]

Democrats would be more likely to ban interracial marriages. The reason is because they will claim the marriage is non-consenting because of the white-black power dynamic. This would be completely consistent with progressive ideology.

[@KuariThunderclaw]

@@raiden031 You say that, yet they're not the ones saying to ban it openly... you literally have republicans that ARE openly saying to do so. Senator Mike Braun specifically said that he believed the Supreme Court made a mistake striking down such bans. He's not the only one to do so either. So hate to tell you, but you're being just a tad delusional if you think Democrats are more likely to do it when Republicans are OPENLY stating they want to.

[@raiden031]

@@KuariThunderclaw saying states should decide things is not the same as calling for a ban on something. And he did come back later and say he is against discrimination. So nobody on the right is calling for a ban on interracial marriage. A ban is strictly consistent with progressive ideology though even though it's not being called for, yet.

[@KuariThunderclaw]

@@raiden031 He came back and said that because he was called out on it. That's how politicians work. You don't call for giving the states the power to discriminate if you're against discrimination. Like the fact you even believe that's a possibility shows a great deal of naivety.

[@chbloss]

Apparently the justices are currently looking at doing away with Miranda Rights.

[@fd9987]

My money is on marriage equality. It will be next on the chopping block.

[@pappav77]

If women no longer have bodily autonomy, when it comes to being pregnant; will they legislate laws where it's illegal and punishable, to drink alcohol, smoke, or engage in any activity that "could" harm the zygote/fetus/baby???

[@J.D.M.R]

Bro they genuinely hate single parents.

[@darrelledison7180]

This caller hasn't been paying attention bc two Republican politicians have said they wouldn't be opposed to going further than Roe by getting other privacy rights reversed like contraceptives, affirmative action, and interracial marriage I think he was just more interested in getting his statement out no matter what you agreed or disagreed to.

[@raiden031]

Someone explain all the rants about "women's reproductive rights"...what happened to the idea that womanhood is an identity and not tied to reproductive system?!?!?

[@powbobs]

Caller is really gullible.

[@lechatbotte.]

This is totally about control. You can’t take away something without providing for all the fallout

[@willjapheth23789]

Nah they just don't like roe v wade.

[@justjax6000]

Wow that guys delusional

[@EarthnikNews]

The word “CONFRONTS,” especially in all caps, seems like quite an exaggerated headline. The caller was rational and normal without being confrontational or Trump-like in any way. What concerns me is that I think you (David) are substantial enough in stature that you don’t have to sink to sensationalist tactics to get views. Please, watch your headlines in the future - I would hate to see you diminish your own credibility by sensationalism.

[@NomadSoul76]

Do you have anything to contribute other than tone policing? We have just been showing concrete evidence that half the country May soon lose the ability to control their own bodies but you want to shame David for using too strong a tone?

[@mackswellgg]

Lol your fee fee’s hurt? An ignorant caller who is unaware of the decades of Republican history doesn’t see what is right in front of them. You can be mad about the wording, but the callers intention was to confront David on something he said, and David eventually backed down saying “let’s just wait and see” Many Pakman viewers see that hog justices will ABSOLUTELY go for their bases favorites hits next. But it is more reasonable to say “let’s just wait and see”

[@FrankPSF]

@@NomadSoul76 What I'm saying is that David is far too credible to use click bait tactics.

[@powbobs]

He was dumb though.

[@shtizen4371]

10 20 30 years from now is what people need to think about. Hell maybe a liberal majority supreme court reinterpret the 2nd amendment 59 years from now

[@williammontrell1075]

I think they are going for affirmative action next

[@jimohara]

That would be a good thing

[@kduncanski]

he didn't "confront you". he sounded like he had swallowed 3 ambiens and had no idea what he was talking about. i like watching your content, but this title is a bit of clickbait.

[@axetune]

None of that is happening, but what you all don’t realize, is that you are losing. No one buys your b.s.

[@scottmiller8617]

This guy is naive.

[@speedy01247]

the best way to counter this is to make it law through congress, which is unsurprisingly going to be a bit difficult, but I think there will be enough support for gay rights to get that passed. but I doubt democrats will try to pass bills to ensure those rights until the Supreme Court revokes their previous decision, which is a problem I find annoying, where you don't do shit about a problem till the problem blows itself up, cause I am in agreement with the right about the decision being on shaky ground, best to cement it with actual legislature then to hope the supreme court upholds the ruling. (I am not opposed to gay rights, but I agree that the ruling was questionable when it happened, I've always held the opinion that its better to use actual legislature to ensure these things then hope for a court to keep upholding it)

[@keithferris9574]

You haven't been paying attention to Republicans. Gay rights will never pass as long as Republicans are connected to Christianity. Never

[@hamudmirza2257]

Mike Braun.

[@jaygrushkin8346]

Would Clarence Thomas vote to ban inter-racial marriage?

[@gladyslambert398]

He sounds like Susan Collins. 🙄

[@shannonking1816]

This guy talking to David needs to go back to sleep because he has no idea what's going on!

[@anna8328]

so true

[@Alex-yb2pq]

I dont agree that we should be afraid over speculation but i see that David and other progressives see this as a chance to rally up the base ahead of the midterms. Some people are motivated by fear and unfortunately we also have to push them.

[@biggb3921]

That's frankly naive. We'll see what the final court opinion is, but Alito's draft opinion decimates the longstanding interpretation of the extent of privacy rights which is the legal reasong upon which Abortion, gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, and much more have been decided on. It's not really a question of how motivated some conservatives may be to to do these other things, it is a question of the law. If the court decides that the legal interpretation upholding abortion is no longer valid, then any other decision based on the same legal interpretation becomes an open question by default unless some new legal reasoning can be established in court. Conservatives are salivating over this. People like Ben Shapiro are already talking about overturning gay marriage, Clarence Thomas spoke about how he wants to revisit the gay marriage decision, republican states are already throwing out laws targeting gay and trans people, and the Christian right just wants it gone. The idea that it's just abortion and nothing else IMO is laughable

[@willjapheth23789]

@@biggb3921 Thomas was against it in 2015, how it that surprising. Neil Gorsuch has ruled in favor of gay and trans people but likely was against roe v wade. Thomas is literally in a interracial marriage. Yes the slippery slope is completely unfounded if you care to actually look at the court rather than the random ultra conservatives.

[@StormcastMarine]

What is wrong with Steve? Reality says hi mate.

[@anna8328]

agree!

[@edwardhoover3727]

I have my problems with slippery slope arguments too, but a nation wide ban on abortions seems to be on pretty flat terra firma at this point.

[@willjapheth23789]

Nation wide ban? There are no grounds for that, at all. A ban in Texas, sure.

[@edwardhoover3727]

@@willjapheth23789 There are dozens of Republican law makers, local, state, and federal, talking about a nation wide ban--and if they (Republicans) take the house and senate they would be able to do exactly that.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@edwardhoover3727 so yall are like only 19% of people want to ban abortion, how could they be so undemocratic, and on the other, a massive wave of pro life bigots will sweep the nation and ban abortion even though we just suggested that most Republicans don't even want to ban abortion. David doesnt even believe a nation wide ban is going to happen, probably because he's smart enough to understand polls and laws.

[@edwardhoover3727]

@@willjapheth23789 Wyoming--two Senators, California--two Senators. What do poles have to do with what happens in the USA?

[@willjapheth23789]

@@edwardhoover3727 I'm sorry you're offended by the senate. Yall don't have good arguments for Roe v wade so you keep deflecting to different topics. Polls tell us what will likely be supported. A nation wide ban would not be by a 2 to 1 margin. Roe v wade lost because it was a trash argument, even if it prescribed sensible rules. Also, nice job ignoring the house of representatives where California has 50 times more seats than Wyoming.

[@Random4us]

Hello!! Qanon! Hasn't the last 5 years watching the nutty far right told him anything??

[@zogar8526]

This caller clearly doesn't understand what the slippery slop fallacy actually is. It isn't just saying doing one thing may lead to another. It is saying one thing may lead to another that is completely unrelated or that has no possible way to lead to it. Example, saying banning video games will lead to more bans is logical, as that is their objective and what they are trying to do. Saying mandating vaccines will lead to government control of health IS the slippery slop fallacy because there is nothing else, other then the republicans with abortion, that the government wants to control. And nothing else that actually irrefutably causes harm the way not vaccinating does. There is no possible slippery slop here, so it is a fallacy, there is in the other case, and with Roe vs. Wade, so it isn't. It isn't tough to understand.

[@jimohara]

So what you’re saying is, it wasn’t going to end at gay marriage? The battleground has moved to transgender kids. Slippery slope proponents be saying legalizing adult child sex is inevitably somewhere on down the line

[@zogar8526]

@@jimohara They literally tried that already. Are you not paying attention? They tried passing a bill to stop gay marriage, and with no age restrictions. And that obviously was not a mistake. They knew perfectly well what they were doing. And now they have even more to do it with.

[@jimohara]

@@zogar8526 Well, I don’t know about that but you’re saying that Bill didn’t pass

[@zogar8526]

@@jimohara It only didn't pass because they were called out on the age thing and a big deal was made about it. And they are trying to still pass a version now with an age restriction. But the fact remains, they tried to pass it. And are still trying to get around gay marriage. And this Roe decision makes it even easier. They are already trying these things. It isn't a possiblitiy, it is already happening, and they aren't going to stop. They will be enboldened.

[@baconbap]

Geez dude, do you constantly stammer around like that? Uh, ah, uh, uh, uh. Form a thought before you call in.

[@curanderoverde]

This guy doesn't understand anything

[@willjapheth23789]

So you think interracial marriage is on the chopping block?

[@cwkay6847]

At least all the progressives now know what a woman is LOL

[@raiden031]

David will claim there is a slippery slope here, but will never ever say there is a slippery slope when it comes to things like males in women's sports or forcing people to use fake pronouns and so on. He is not honest.

[@mackswellgg]

No, im pretty sure you aren’t honest. Or you’re just wrong and don’t know it. Stop crying over what people have in their pants. Conservatives are SO involved in peoples pants it’s beyond parody. People need healthcare, roofs over their heads, and food. Conservatives don’t care about anything important to their country. Just what’s important to them.

[@willjapheth23789]

What, what's the slippery slope with pronouns? But yea David is wrong, it's slippery slope fear mongering.

[@raiden031]

@@willjapheth23789 what starts as requesting to use preferred pronouns as polite becomes mandated by employment and ultimately becomes required by law when left unchallenged. Same with all aspects of gender ideology (the idea that self-described gender must be recognized over sex). David has stated none of these issues even exist in the past.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@raiden031 I see. So you don't like manners and other social requirements. Understandable, alot of people don't, for some people it's clothes, others would prefer to be allowed to touch people's asses randomly. For you it's preferred pronouns.

[@willjapheth23789]

@@raiden031 you're basically just complaining about the existence of the social version of the Overton window.

[@FaithwalkerTodd]

I think the left pushed too far and now the pendulums going to swing back. The harder they pushed the more swing back there will be.

[@TehSeksyManz]

Pushed too far in what way?

[@Mike-jv4rz]

Bingo!

[@jimohara]

@@TehSeksyManz Mangling the push for full term and post birth abortions

[@TehSeksyManz]

@@jimohara There are a lot of medical reasons behind why those happen. Republicans tend to ignore science, though. They always have.

[@persephonekajira7269]

@@jimohara are you dribbling 🐂💩, champ? Of course you are

[@bridgettedenise]

Lies

[@xxxxrossxxxx9235]

David at the end Says nothing In essence says…you’re a clown and we can agree to disagree.

[@kevinpurscell7283]

What is this Christian version of Sharia law called?

[@JF-id3sj]

Last time I checked I haven’t heard of Christians beheading anyone for homosexuality. But it would be great! Definitely would fix the country!

[@Chloe7324v7h]

Evilgelicalism

[@bruceclark406]

Thank you Steve for taking the time to call David out on this.

[@mkself3231]

Thank you David for clarifying to Steve about his confused take on things.

[@jimohara]

@@mkself3231 Thank you David for scaremongering your audience as usual

[@mkself3231]

@@jimoharaPoor Jimmy is scared...better go watch Tucker, so you can feel better.

[@mkself3231]

@@based_yeoman9138 Exactly...I was being sarcastic. lol!

[@markcrampton5873]

@@jimohara Tan your balls and you won't be scared !

[@noblepursuit591]

1:38 David is pretty weasely. Tries to cut the caller off at the pass and assume that he wasn't listening. The caller was suggesting that he hasn't seen any evidence that Conservatives are coming for gay marriage or access to contraceptives. David immediately tries to play his semantic game and simultaneously tries to appease the caller by saying that he agrees that there isn't any sign that Conservatives are taking further steps, yet he still believes it due to some vague comments from Charlie Kirk. Yes, this is a slippery slope.

[@Valdrex]

I think it's foolish to even mention interracial marriage. That's clearly absurd and I can't think of a single republican who would support that. Focus on the ideas they really do support, like getting rid of gay marriage and limiting contraception.

[@powbobs]

I can introduce you to a bunch.

[@scottgarbs7761]

Hi David, The caller DID hear you. That's why this person called (assuming this call is authentic). You apparently suggested interracial and/or gay marriage was something Conservatives might try to make illegal somehow. Really! Now it seems after you've slandered Conservatives for the purpose of creating anger in your audience (which any reasonable person could rationally conclude is your real intent) you say to this caller...well, I didn't mean Conservatives are attacking these issues and I don't have any evidence this attack is happening. Then you say....you see Charlie Kirk said this so attacking these above subjects must be the Conservative position! Charlie Kirk speaks for Conservatives? Since when? That's like saying BLM's chant "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" represents the Democrat Party position on law and order. Why do you try to create anger in your audience? Is it because your commentary can't withstand scrutiny without the slanderous garbage? Do you think you have to trick your audience to get them to agree with you? It's common to read/hear how there's so much divisiveness out there. You're certainly doing your part to keep it going aren't you. C'mon man!

[@powbobs]

You’re delusional.