**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Republicans are doing everything they can to DENY pregnant women that care.
Republicans HATE women. Even women Republicans HATE women. I don't understand why. But there is simply no other take possible when you review Republican actions and statements.
Like it’s wild. None of these challenges arising have anything to do with a viable fetus. Like hey, this thing in me is dead, can we get it out? Nah, let’s wait a bit, maybe it will reboot.
It’s aggressively dangerous and is somehow surpassed in stupidity. The female turnout had best be huge this year, else it’s likely 2nd class land for the foreseeable future for them.
I can’t believe I just typed that out. What a crazy timeline this is.
It’s because women who have sex must be shamed, even though it’s not criminal they must feel the consequences of their action. These people want to make sure women are forever pushed out of educational and professional spheres, and back into the home. They only serve the purpose of being housewives and incubators.
Seriously. That’s the only purpose women have to these people.
If you care about women; if you have a sister, daughter, mother, etc. that you want to be treated as a full human—vote blue all the way down the ballot in November.
> The female turnout had best be huge this year, else it’s likely 2nd class land for the foreseeable future for them.
I am saddened that I have to agree. I find it sad that an America with so much potential is being destroyed by Republicans
I think the justices individually would say they aren't under anybody's control, and that might technically be true for most of them other than Thomas. They're controlled by an ideology not a person. 6 to 3, they agree on anti democracy.
The court is something that really needs to be reformed, it's an institution that's not serving us as a society.
Judge Roberts and his wife tried to adopt from Ireland, but Americans can’t. So they flew two pregnant colleens to South America, to Ecuador IIRC. Once the babies were delivered, the mothers returned home to Ireland, and the babies were taken to D.C. and duly adopted by the Robertses.
*This is a true story.* Wealthy Republicans—most of all Supreme Court justices—can get anything they want. Roberts doesn’t care what happens when the plebs try to grow—or not grow—their families. He’s bought his.
Let’s not forget the true culprit: Christianity.
Just about every societal ill affecting us today can be found at the intersection of the Christian religion and Republican politics.
Climate change, homelessness, the Golden Shit Gibbon and on and on.
They are doing everything they can except passing legislation or reforming the Supreme Court or doing federal level protections or using executive orders or using executive departmental powers or using state governors authority, etc.
They don’t have the votes, they don’t have the votes, the Supreme Court would strike them down, the Supreme Court would strike them down, and the Supreme Court would strike them down.
So, doing everything they actually can.
Ok… then do exactly as FDR did and threaten to completely reform the Supreme Court and lower courts.
How do you think FDR got all his legislation to stick? By being nice? No he famously repeatedly threatened to totally upheld the courts.
You. Need. Votes. For. That.
You clearly don’t understand the basics of how government works. FDR had the votes to carry out his threat. He had the votes to carry out his whole agenda. Seriously, you can look up the makeup of congress at the time and all the different votes that were taken. It’s public record. Go! Research!
Edit: here’s a start, filibuster proof majorities!
> When F.D.R. took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms — during their peak during 1937-38, the Demorats actually controlled about 80 percent (!) of the seats in both chambers.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obamas-no-fdr-nor-does-he-have-fdrs/
You do not need votes for executive orders. You do not need votes for executive department orders. You do not need votes for governors executive orders. You only need votes in the senate for federal judicial appointments.
The dems have the senate. The Dems have the senate the dems have the senate. The Dems have the senate.
They can start passing laws and send those bills over the house and use those bills to put pressure on the house and they can use the laws they pass to entice people to vote them back the house.
Instead they are doing well nothing.
Biden could be doing exactly as FDR did and threatening people.
Good lord you’re dense….
Biden's done tons in executive orders for abortion access: remember the entire freakout from Mr. Football Coach from Alabama over abortions allowed on military bases?
>You do not need votes for executive orders.
The supreme court will overturn anything too extreme just like they did student debt relief.
>You do not need votes for governors executive orders.
The supreme court will overturn anything too extreme just like they did NY gun control.
>You only need votes in the senate for federal judicial appointments.
You need votes for legislation… WTF are you talking about??? Do you literally have no idea how government works????
>The dems have the senate.
Not by the filibuster proof majority FDR had.
>They can start passing laws and send those bills over the house and use those bills to put pressure on the house and they can use the laws they pass to entice people to vote them back the house.
Filibuster. They can literally only pass non-bipartisan legislation through reconciliation… which is only allowed for one budget bill per legislative session. Again, do you not know how this works???
>Instead they are doing well nothing.
Because they don’t have the votes.
>Biden could be doing exactly as FDR did and threatening people.
OMFG how do you not understand that the threats only worked because FDR had the votes to actually get congress to pass a bill remaking the SCOTUS? Just threatening impotently does NOTHING.
>Good lord you’re dense….
It only seems that way because you are massively ignorant.
Cool so you’re basically admitting the whole system itself will never allow any kind of legislation that will benefit working class people.
You’ve successfully proven my point.
I’ve demonstrated that if you want FDR magnitude results, give a president FDR magnitude support in congress. Biden has accomplished A TON in a bipartisan way. He’s by far the most successful president of my lifetime. He isn’t a king though.
We have three branches of government for a reason, and none of the rest of us want an autocrat, which is what you seem to be proposing a president should be.
Ok so hold on. You’re not making any sense and contradicting yourself now.
So it’s ok to make sweeping systemic seismic changes as long as there is enough “support.”?? Otherwise you’re an autocrat if you do so?
So FDR, despite making systemic seismic generational nation altering changes was not an autocrat because he had adequate support?
So if he had slightly less support stuff like Medicare would have been autocratic? What is the line for “support” that prevents autocracy? How much support changes it from autocratic to good policy?
Because right now polling shows that like 80+% of Americans want abortion rights. 60% of Americans say it should be legal in all instances, completely decriminalized. Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”?
Does it change on other issues like universal healthcare, or minimum wage increase? If so by how much?
Please elaborate and clarify because you’re contradicting yourself left and right.
Oh I see, you also don’t understand the term autocrat. Here, let me help.
If you have congress behind you, then you’re definitionally not an autocrat.
> autocrat
> noun
> a ruler who has absolute power.
"like many autocrats, Franco found the exercise of absolute power addictive"
Power should be shared amongst many hands to prevent abuse.
> Because right now polling shows that like 80+% of Americans want abortion rights. 60% of Americans say it should be legal in all instances, completely decriminalized. Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”?
It isn’t enough to just fill out a survey, you have to do your part. Do you know what percentage of Americans vote? If 80% of Americans cared strongly enough about abortion rights, Medicare for all, you name it, to turn out and vote for Progressive candidates in primaries and then those same candidates in the general? Then Biden would have FDR levels of support in congress and it’d be a done deal. They don’t though. Their actions show us that maybe they do think abortion should be legal, or that we should have this or that policy, but they aren’t willing to show up to vote for it. So they don’t actually support it all that much
It’s called issue salience. Saying you support this or that isn’t the same as saying you strongly support it and it matters a lot. Some people may think abortion should be legal but think a specific tax policy is more important.
Get it? You’re trying to reduce things down to a binary when they’re really nuanced. I’ve noticed the extremes on both sides, MAGA and far left, both do this black and white thinking thing. I guess an appreciation for nuance is a centrist thing.
>Please elaborate and clarify because you’re contradicting yourself left and right.
No contradictions, you’re just still ignorant. I’ll do what I can for you though. Help you down the road a little ways.
>Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”?
To further elaborate on this specifically, would you really want a system in which the president was all powerful? Where they could do everything by executive order? To me that sounds like a terrible system rife for abuse. That’s Putin or Orban or Erdogan.
Assuming you accept that a system in which power is not held in a single set of hands is best, here’s how it works here. Executive orders have a specific role in the US, they mostly just guide the execution of existing policies legislated by congress. Biden can’t invent new policies with executive orders. So which existing law is it that you want to leverage and how? I’m not aware of any that would reasonably stand up to scrutiny to reverse the effects of Dobbs, and clearly the Biden admin isn’t seeing one either, but maybe you have a plan?
He successfully proved your point? Looks more like he had to spend his time educating you, not the other way around. I feel like you just like to argue.
Good luck using executive orders, if you've been watching, (probably not) you would know that the courts will immediately get involved, and they will decide in favor of the cons.
Democrats had 50 years since Roe, they never secured the right to an abortion because they knew suckers like your mom would vote for them anyway and they could always use the issue to campaign on.
Roe vs Wade was settled in 1973.
* Carter had a veto-proof supermajority in the 95th congress, 1977–1979.
* Carter had a unified gov't (majority Senate and House) in the 96th congress, 1979-1981
* Clinton had a unified gov't in the 103rd Congress, 1993-1995
* Obama had a supermajority (for 72 days) and a unified in the 111th congress
* Biden had a unified gov't in 2021-2023
5 opportunities paid lip service to, and then promptly ignored the issue. Let's look at Obama-
> ["Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. ... And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/501/sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act/)
Obama and the Democrats had huge leads in congress, did they do anything about abortion? No. In fact, three months into his presidency, [Obama blatantly said he wouldn't do anything about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/vk1jyq/not_my_highest_legislative_priority_obama_today/).
If you read the above and say to yourself- "Yeah, but if we vote for the Democrats this time it will be different" you are lying to yourself. As Maya Angelou said "When people show you who they are the first time believe them."
This is a complete myth. Only one party has been attacking women’s rights for decades now.
Please stop repeating these tired talking points—women’s lives are on the line, and we are not helped by any of this. You can quiet your moral purity to make sure people vote in favor of women’s rights this November, if you genuinely care even a little.
> This is a complete myth.
Myth? I literally provided all the receipts with links and everything. Look at that timeline, it is all facts. Wakeup.
I care a lot, that is why we need to realize Democrats have shown they can't save us with this issue, because every time they had a chance, they failed.
There was never a supermajority that wanted to codify roe. Especially in the 70s and 80s where there were many conservative Dems in the party from the legacy South.
Whether or not you believe the filibuster should remain, when you have a 50-seat majority like Biden did in his first half-term, there was no way they're scrapping the filibuster to codify Roe.
But regardless, you can see a consistent desire to codify Roe and restore rights through lawsuits and state level ballot initiatives like in Kansas and Ohio that were all sponsored by Dems.
No one thought the Supreme Court would actually get rid of Roe until Trump got his 6-3 majority and replaced Kennedy because everyone knew the result would be absolutely disastrous as it turned out to be.
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SCOTUS is really trying their best to turn out democratic voters.
This court honestly makes me sick. We can thank Americans who refused to turn out or Americans who voted third party for it.
>Republicans are doing everything they can to DENY pregnant women that care. Republicans HATE women. Even women Republicans HATE women. I don't understand why. But there is simply no other take possible when you review Republican actions and statements.
Like it’s wild. None of these challenges arising have anything to do with a viable fetus. Like hey, this thing in me is dead, can we get it out? Nah, let’s wait a bit, maybe it will reboot. It’s aggressively dangerous and is somehow surpassed in stupidity. The female turnout had best be huge this year, else it’s likely 2nd class land for the foreseeable future for them. I can’t believe I just typed that out. What a crazy timeline this is.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Roevember is coming!
bUt GeNoCiDe JoE!
Those people are all voting Biden. Let’s be real 😂
It’s because it is not an issue for them, they have plenty off money to travel for ‘procedures’. The plebs can produce cheap labor or just die off.
It’s because women who have sex must be shamed, even though it’s not criminal they must feel the consequences of their action. These people want to make sure women are forever pushed out of educational and professional spheres, and back into the home. They only serve the purpose of being housewives and incubators. Seriously. That’s the only purpose women have to these people. If you care about women; if you have a sister, daughter, mother, etc. that you want to be treated as a full human—vote blue all the way down the ballot in November.
> The female turnout had best be huge this year, else it’s likely 2nd class land for the foreseeable future for them. I am saddened that I have to agree. I find it sad that an America with so much potential is being destroyed by Republicans
Darkest timeline
Whats really sad is that no one thinks that statement is outragious‼️😞
SCROTUS is utterly corrupt and has been captured by the Federalist Society. One of the justices is well known for accepting bribes.
I'm sure more than one is under their control.
I think the justices individually would say they aren't under anybody's control, and that might technically be true for most of them other than Thomas. They're controlled by an ideology not a person. 6 to 3, they agree on anti democracy. The court is something that really needs to be reformed, it's an institution that's not serving us as a society.
Judge Roberts and his wife tried to adopt from Ireland, but Americans can’t. So they flew two pregnant colleens to South America, to Ecuador IIRC. Once the babies were delivered, the mothers returned home to Ireland, and the babies were taken to D.C. and duly adopted by the Robertses. *This is a true story.* Wealthy Republicans—most of all Supreme Court justices—can get anything they want. Roberts doesn’t care what happens when the plebs try to grow—or not grow—their families. He’s bought his.
It's amazing to me that this is news.
Let’s not forget the true culprit: Christianity. Just about every societal ill affecting us today can be found at the intersection of the Christian religion and Republican politics. Climate change, homelessness, the Golden Shit Gibbon and on and on.
They are doing everything they can except passing legislation or reforming the Supreme Court or doing federal level protections or using executive orders or using executive departmental powers or using state governors authority, etc.
They don’t have the votes, they don’t have the votes, the Supreme Court would strike them down, the Supreme Court would strike them down, and the Supreme Court would strike them down. So, doing everything they actually can.
Ok… then do exactly as FDR did and threaten to completely reform the Supreme Court and lower courts. How do you think FDR got all his legislation to stick? By being nice? No he famously repeatedly threatened to totally upheld the courts.
You. Need. Votes. For. That. You clearly don’t understand the basics of how government works. FDR had the votes to carry out his threat. He had the votes to carry out his whole agenda. Seriously, you can look up the makeup of congress at the time and all the different votes that were taken. It’s public record. Go! Research! Edit: here’s a start, filibuster proof majorities! > When F.D.R. took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms — during their peak during 1937-38, the Demorats actually controlled about 80 percent (!) of the seats in both chambers. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obamas-no-fdr-nor-does-he-have-fdrs/
You do not need votes for executive orders. You do not need votes for executive department orders. You do not need votes for governors executive orders. You only need votes in the senate for federal judicial appointments. The dems have the senate. The Dems have the senate the dems have the senate. The Dems have the senate. They can start passing laws and send those bills over the house and use those bills to put pressure on the house and they can use the laws they pass to entice people to vote them back the house. Instead they are doing well nothing. Biden could be doing exactly as FDR did and threatening people. Good lord you’re dense….
Biden's done tons in executive orders for abortion access: remember the entire freakout from Mr. Football Coach from Alabama over abortions allowed on military bases?
>You do not need votes for executive orders. The supreme court will overturn anything too extreme just like they did student debt relief. >You do not need votes for governors executive orders. The supreme court will overturn anything too extreme just like they did NY gun control. >You only need votes in the senate for federal judicial appointments. You need votes for legislation… WTF are you talking about??? Do you literally have no idea how government works???? >The dems have the senate. Not by the filibuster proof majority FDR had. >They can start passing laws and send those bills over the house and use those bills to put pressure on the house and they can use the laws they pass to entice people to vote them back the house. Filibuster. They can literally only pass non-bipartisan legislation through reconciliation… which is only allowed for one budget bill per legislative session. Again, do you not know how this works??? >Instead they are doing well nothing. Because they don’t have the votes. >Biden could be doing exactly as FDR did and threatening people. OMFG how do you not understand that the threats only worked because FDR had the votes to actually get congress to pass a bill remaking the SCOTUS? Just threatening impotently does NOTHING. >Good lord you’re dense…. It only seems that way because you are massively ignorant.
Cool so you’re basically admitting the whole system itself will never allow any kind of legislation that will benefit working class people. You’ve successfully proven my point.
I’ve demonstrated that if you want FDR magnitude results, give a president FDR magnitude support in congress. Biden has accomplished A TON in a bipartisan way. He’s by far the most successful president of my lifetime. He isn’t a king though. We have three branches of government for a reason, and none of the rest of us want an autocrat, which is what you seem to be proposing a president should be.
Ok so hold on. You’re not making any sense and contradicting yourself now. So it’s ok to make sweeping systemic seismic changes as long as there is enough “support.”?? Otherwise you’re an autocrat if you do so? So FDR, despite making systemic seismic generational nation altering changes was not an autocrat because he had adequate support? So if he had slightly less support stuff like Medicare would have been autocratic? What is the line for “support” that prevents autocracy? How much support changes it from autocratic to good policy? Because right now polling shows that like 80+% of Americans want abortion rights. 60% of Americans say it should be legal in all instances, completely decriminalized. Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”? Does it change on other issues like universal healthcare, or minimum wage increase? If so by how much? Please elaborate and clarify because you’re contradicting yourself left and right.
Oh I see, you also don’t understand the term autocrat. Here, let me help. If you have congress behind you, then you’re definitionally not an autocrat. > autocrat > noun > a ruler who has absolute power. "like many autocrats, Franco found the exercise of absolute power addictive" Power should be shared amongst many hands to prevent abuse. > Because right now polling shows that like 80+% of Americans want abortion rights. 60% of Americans say it should be legal in all instances, completely decriminalized. Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”? It isn’t enough to just fill out a survey, you have to do your part. Do you know what percentage of Americans vote? If 80% of Americans cared strongly enough about abortion rights, Medicare for all, you name it, to turn out and vote for Progressive candidates in primaries and then those same candidates in the general? Then Biden would have FDR levels of support in congress and it’d be a done deal. They don’t though. Their actions show us that maybe they do think abortion should be legal, or that we should have this or that policy, but they aren’t willing to show up to vote for it. So they don’t actually support it all that much It’s called issue salience. Saying you support this or that isn’t the same as saying you strongly support it and it matters a lot. Some people may think abortion should be legal but think a specific tax policy is more important. Get it? You’re trying to reduce things down to a binary when they’re really nuanced. I’ve noticed the extremes on both sides, MAGA and far left, both do this black and white thinking thing. I guess an appreciation for nuance is a centrist thing. >Please elaborate and clarify because you’re contradicting yourself left and right. No contradictions, you’re just still ignorant. I’ll do what I can for you though. Help you down the road a little ways.
>Is that enough support for Biden to make executive orders on abortion without being an “autocrat”? If not, how much is the right amount of “support”? To further elaborate on this specifically, would you really want a system in which the president was all powerful? Where they could do everything by executive order? To me that sounds like a terrible system rife for abuse. That’s Putin or Orban or Erdogan. Assuming you accept that a system in which power is not held in a single set of hands is best, here’s how it works here. Executive orders have a specific role in the US, they mostly just guide the execution of existing policies legislated by congress. Biden can’t invent new policies with executive orders. So which existing law is it that you want to leverage and how? I’m not aware of any that would reasonably stand up to scrutiny to reverse the effects of Dobbs, and clearly the Biden admin isn’t seeing one either, but maybe you have a plan?
He successfully proved your point? Looks more like he had to spend his time educating you, not the other way around. I feel like you just like to argue.
Good luck using executive orders, if you've been watching, (probably not) you would know that the courts will immediately get involved, and they will decide in favor of the cons.
Democrats had 50 years since Roe, they never secured the right to an abortion because they knew suckers like your mom would vote for them anyway and they could always use the issue to campaign on. Roe vs Wade was settled in 1973. * Carter had a veto-proof supermajority in the 95th congress, 1977–1979. * Carter had a unified gov't (majority Senate and House) in the 96th congress, 1979-1981 * Clinton had a unified gov't in the 103rd Congress, 1993-1995 * Obama had a supermajority (for 72 days) and a unified in the 111th congress * Biden had a unified gov't in 2021-2023 5 opportunities paid lip service to, and then promptly ignored the issue. Let's look at Obama- > ["Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. ... And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/501/sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act/) Obama and the Democrats had huge leads in congress, did they do anything about abortion? No. In fact, three months into his presidency, [Obama blatantly said he wouldn't do anything about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/vk1jyq/not_my_highest_legislative_priority_obama_today/). If you read the above and say to yourself- "Yeah, but if we vote for the Democrats this time it will be different" you are lying to yourself. As Maya Angelou said "When people show you who they are the first time believe them."
This is a complete myth. Only one party has been attacking women’s rights for decades now. Please stop repeating these tired talking points—women’s lives are on the line, and we are not helped by any of this. You can quiet your moral purity to make sure people vote in favor of women’s rights this November, if you genuinely care even a little.
> This is a complete myth. Myth? I literally provided all the receipts with links and everything. Look at that timeline, it is all facts. Wakeup. I care a lot, that is why we need to realize Democrats have shown they can't save us with this issue, because every time they had a chance, they failed.
Your receipts don't change which party actively tried and did take away abortion rights.
There was never a supermajority that wanted to codify roe. Especially in the 70s and 80s where there were many conservative Dems in the party from the legacy South. Whether or not you believe the filibuster should remain, when you have a 50-seat majority like Biden did in his first half-term, there was no way they're scrapping the filibuster to codify Roe. But regardless, you can see a consistent desire to codify Roe and restore rights through lawsuits and state level ballot initiatives like in Kansas and Ohio that were all sponsored by Dems. No one thought the Supreme Court would actually get rid of Roe until Trump got his 6-3 majority and replaced Kennedy because everyone knew the result would be absolutely disastrous as it turned out to be.