You keep saying this is a practical response, but won’t say how, so I’m done with you. You’re the one talking in hypotheticals here, as if bills with no chance of getting passed are actually going to accomplish something. You just keep repeating the same statement about these bills, with zero factual basis.

Good luck out there, because it sure seems like nothing is getting through to you, and I see you talking in the same circles with others now that I’ve looked around the thread more.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, as that is not at all what I said. Let me spell it out loud and clear for you. Republicans already did a terrible thing removing women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies. Several Democratic Senators proposed bills that would impose restrictions broadly within the same category that would impact men, rather than women, if they were to pass, but have literally none of the dire consequences women face from the Republican actions. These proposed bills have literally zero chance of passing into law, and thus will not have any effect. Now, then.

this is a very practical solution.

Let’s pull up the old Cambridge dictionary for that pesky word I’ve bolded.

relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination

Now, since these aren’t going to pass into law, and thus have no binding effect on reality, how exactly is this a practical solution.

it isn’t. this legislation prohibiting female bodily autonomy already happened. raped children are being forced to keep their rape babies. women are dying in the parking. lots of hospitals. they are being bounty hunted for seeking medical care. That’s not performative. those are real life effects of these people. you want to allow to steal civil rights, including basic human dignity.

Uh, I don’t know how to break it to you, but those are all the consequences of the Republican policy that have already taken effect, and these laws don’t propose to undo any of them. Once more, they don’t even level the field of oppression, since they aren’t going to pass, and the people writing them know this.

A practical solution would have been addressing the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court to prevent the conservative-packed court from doing exactly what they did. Or actually codifying the protections obtained from the Roe v. Wade decision in law at any point in the 50+ years since the ruling was initially made. Either one of those would have actually prevented this situation.

You have yet to articulate in any way how proposing laws that these legislators know will not be passed will do literally anything aside from generate some media coverage. Unless you can do so, there’s no point in engaging with you any further. I don’t know if you’re just a troll, or if you really believe this will actually provoke any real change, as you refuse to explain why you believe this to be a practical solution that will bear fruit, either by correcting the wrongs done to women in this country or by making men face vaguely similar (but not really, kind of hard to equate dying painfully and unnecessarily from being denied healthcare with a $10,000 fine) consequences, in spite of all evidence indicating otherwise.

restricting people’s bodily autonomy and healthcare so that they are dying in the streets of the US is not “performative nonsense”.

That’s not what I said, and you know it. Republicans implemented a concrete policy, with dire real world consequences. These proposed bills are dead before they’ve even finished drafting them, and accomplish nothing beyond creating a moment of tone-deaf political theater so that people who already agree with them can pat themselves on the back.

This does nothing to undo the harms of Republican anti-abortion laws, it doesn’t prevent any of those women from dying, it’s performative bullshit preaching to the choir. This isn’t going to make Republicans suddenly go, “Gee, I never thought of it like that,” it’s just to get brownie points in liberal circles.

They could have, I don’t know, removed the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court to prevent Republicans from doing exactly what they said they wanted to do the last time around, but that’s a step too far for the Democrats. I mean, it could have put the matter to rest definitively enough until they had a legislative majority that would let them codify abortion rights, but heavens forbid they kill off one of their great fundraising cash cows and lose the ability to campaign on “If you don’t vote Democrat, the Republicans are going to undo Roe v. Wade!” This is another blunder like Hillary’s pied piper strategy that came back to bite them when Republicans did the thing Democrats thought couldn’t seriously happen.

If women’s rights are restricted in that country, then so should be the men’s.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if they did, you and I both know these bills have a 0% chance of actually passing and changing anything.

This is a valid and effective proposal to counter the reproductive rights recently stolen from women.

Since you’re so sure this isn’t purely performative, but a valid and effective counter, would you care to quantify that efficacy for me? How many of these bills need to be proposed and die before they even hit the floor to win over enough Republicans? How many until women who lost their reproductive rights actually see them restored? Until women stop dying from being denied basic healthcare? I’m not expecting an exact number, but surely, you could give me a ballpark estimate and a timeline for these efforts to start producing results, as confident as you are in this strategy.

Nah, this is performative nonsense to grab some headlines and say, “See, we’re doing stuff,” that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually passing and changing peoples’ lives. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running roughshod all over the Democrats on things that actually have pretty immediate, overwhelmingly negative impacts on peoples’ lives, like the shitshow that is DOGE, and the Democrats are just angrily wagging their collective finger and going, “Why, Mr. President, if you don’t knock that off, I’m going to really get cross with you. I daresay, I may even use uncouth language in reference to your person, despite the esteemed office you occupy!” They aren’t even making token efforts at trying to derail any of his cabinet picks and get some GOP defectors to help block them.

They’ve tried nothing and thrown up their hands, so now it’s time to draw out the tried and true playbook of looking as incompetent and out of touch at a key moment in history as they can possibly manage to do, short of outright switching party membership and taking up the GOP mantle themselves.

Yeah, it’s pretty good, especially in the summer time.

On topic for the thread, the way I make it has pretty much always gotten a “WTF are you trying to feed me?” look from Dominicans. Okay, more of an “Ay dios mío, este muchacho” eye roll and a “¿Qué es este menjunje que tu tá inventando allí?” from them, if I’m being honest. For the ones I’ve gotten to actually try it, though, they all agree it’s pretty good.

I have the usual mix of milk and orange juice, add in some sweetened, condensed milk, vanilla extract, and then I add jam/preserves instead of just sugar. I’m partial to cherry preserves, but if chinola jam were a thing I could get here, I’d probably just stick with that. Toss it in a blender with some flaked ice, and 30 seconds later, you’re that much closer to developing diabetes. Depending on the sort of night I’m having, I might toss in some spiced rum, too.

I think the biggest pro for me would be that sane policies at the federal level that are broadly popular in my region could stop getting blocked by yokels representing states that sometimes barely even have the population of the semi-rural county I grew up in in the Northeast. Ditto for not having to worry about corporate interests from those same states filing frivolous lawsuits that manage to block the implementation of the odd policy that does make it through, like student loan forgiveness.

Also, I’m not above admitting that there’s a great deal of appeal in the potential schadenfreude of all the “But I don’t want my taxes paying for the trans, minority welfare queens getting bottom surgery! Down with any social safety net!” Republicans from the South and Midwest being forced to reckon with the fact that they have actually been the welfare queens this whole time, and it’s only been by the grace of those dang liberal states paying in disproportionately high shares of taxes that get funneled towards red states that their shithole states haven’t yet collapsed entirely. Let’s see how Alabama fares with its whooping 1.1% of the national GDP when they no longer have federal funding to prop them up. Their top 5 employers are all public institutions that likely depend on federal funding to remain operational, and 2/5 of them are military bases. Good luck, guys, the South will fall again.

For cons, obviously it’ll suck for the people who still live in those states until they finally move, but that’s been the case for a long time. If the decent regions help finance the move for those who are willing to leave, but unable to for lack of money, I’m kind of fine with it. Same goes for overlooking criminal charges when people are unable to leave their state due to some BS non-violent crimes landing them on parole and being refused travel permissions. If Mississippi wants to lock you down as exploitable labor because you got pulled over with some weed, or loaned a kid a book that said gay people actually aren’t the spawn of Satan sent to destroy US civilization, come on over. They can keep their sex offenders and violent criminals, though. For the folks that don’t move because “Oh, but my family is here and I love them too much to move away,” or similar reasons, good luck with living through the second feudal age, but that’s your own choice.

Likewise, it’ll be sad to see them destroy national and state parks in the name of business, as well as visiting those places while they still exist being a much riskier proposition.

Honestly, I think most red states severely underestimate how poorly things would go for them if they were to be cut loose, while overestimating the popular support they would enjoy and their international appeal as trade partners. Even for the ones who are in a relatively favorable economic opinion, like Texas, would probably see absolutely insane levels of brain drain from industry and higher education that would leave them dead in the water, barring state-sanctioned violence to prevent people from leaving.

That said, their economies would be devastated. Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and Kentucky would all see between 20.7%-30.7% of their overall revenues for state and local governments vanish overnight if they stopped receiving federal funding. States like New York and Texas could probably come away at a net profit just by retaining the taxes they’d previously passed on to the federal government, even factoring in how many new services would have to be provided for at the state/regional level that were previously financed by the federal government. For the states like New Mexico, Mississippi, and Alabama that manage to claw back almost all of what they contribute in federal taxes, if not get more back in federal funding, good luck. Somehow, I suspect their new, libertarian overlords in Texas aren’t going to be so keen on subsidizing their impoverished neighbors to any real extent.