This is what happens when you elect Republicans. You aren't a woman anymore. You're property. You can't decide your most intimate health decisions. You're forced to let a man dictate to you, and they aren't remotely reasonable.
Hi @Upvotes_Kills_Birds ! Really glad to see someone testing out the discussion thread format in our magazine!
Will you please edit your title so that it starts with 'Discussion:' to help differentiate it from other submissions to news/opinion pieces?
The mod team is finalizing our magazine's side bar rules, but our approach to moderating Discussion threads is going to be an "enter at your own risk" caveat, so having those spaces clearly marked helps communicate to users that they should expect opposing views in the comments more than some news items may invite.
The only thing bipartisan about this is the knowledge that such a bill will never pass. That’s why these psychos introduce it every so often. Just a publicity stunt.
I would disagree. The conservatives nowadays are not even conservative. Pre reagan republicans were way different than post reagan ones and even pre trump is different than post trump. The party is just nutters now.
If you have to go back to the 50s to disprove the notion that there are no good conservatives, I feel like that's a pretty good indication that there are no good conservatives.
If they stayed in the party through The Trump years, through all the lies, gaslighting, irrationality, racism, scapegoating, boorishness, hostility, anti-intellectualism, misogyny, crime, opposition to democracy, and a failed insurrection... they're not conservative, they're radical right.
They have co-opted the term because it lends them credibility. They are not conservative, they are a death-cult.
Being ‘conservative’ in a political sense was once about how much you thought the government should pull economic levers. At least in Canada, where our Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties were once fairly close together.
“Conservatives” today are fundamentalists, which means they would make very poor conservatives, even if they knew what economic levers were. Gotta move beyond the fundamentals eventually.
According to the SCOTUS, a bill that specifically gives the executive permission to modify or waive student loan terms during an emergency (like the national state of emergency brought on by a pandemic) does not give them permission to forgive $10k of those loans. That's too big to count as a "modification" but apparently too small to count as a "waiver". And it's fine to file lawsuits on behalf of people who do not want to file that suit and are not harmed by the matter. Standing no longer matters before the partisan legislative body known as the Supreme Court.
It's brazenly clear that the justices on the court are partisans, and the conservatives in particular are partisans who do not even attempt to justify making the rulings they want to rule. If anyone alive thinks there was any merit to this lawsuit, they're a fool, an idiot, or both. It's heartening to see young people are largely not being tricked.
It is a bald-faced power grab from the court. It's turning themselves into a legislative body to rewrite and create new laws based on a completely capricious test. It is 100% fake and will NOT survive the historical record, but these chucklefucks are going to do a lot of damage with it in the meantime.
‘Major questions doctrine’ and ‘originalism’ were both invented from whole cloth as justification for conservatives going against the spirit of the constitution, it’s all bullshit, it’s all propaganda the court is using to justify it’s blatant partisan corruption.
Notice also that all of these newly discovered ‘theories of law’ are all conservative in nature, both sides are the same my ass. The entire conservative movement is basically corrupt to the bone.
Watch how fast Barret code switches between textualism and purposivism depending on context. Suddenly making arguments about intent that conflicts with the text of a law (even ignoring the fact that there is clear proof that her claimed intent is false).
These people are honest-to-god monsters. They will say or do anything to achieve their agenda. Absolutely zero legitimacy. It's time to, at minimum, pack the court.
On top of that, the major questions doctrine is to help shape future legislation on these issues of American society deemed vitally important. That isn't the role of SCOTUS. The court should be there to balance and check the law; it only exists to be reactive, not proactive on matters of law.
Having read the article again, I'm commenting twice.
What strikes me in the article is the discussion surrounding Fled Cruz running off to Cancun. The Dem strategists say that Cruz was able to repair his image on that by pointing to a lifetime of career public service, so it seems like the Cancun trip is untouchable.
Why not go after Cruz on the fact that he proposed legislation for term limits for senators, and this upcoming term for him would exceed the term limit he proposed? You can't backpedal out of that. Do you or do you not believe in the strength of your own ideas in proposal? If you do, then why are you running again? If you don't, then why should anyone vote for someone governing from insincere positions?
"I still think it would be the right move, but so long as it isn't the rules for the Dems I am not going to hamstring my base by following it" - some version of what he will say to handwave the hypocricy.
Going after conservatives for being hypocrites is not a winning strategy. The movement is about social hierarchies and identity politics. It just doesn't care about hypocrisy in service of the tribe and is totally credulous to any justification, no matter how tenuous.
I anticipate the hand-waving would actually be "term limits are the best option, but with corrupt pedophiles on the democrats' side, I have to stay in the game to save America. To save the children."
Honestly, I don't know if there is any logos or ethos argument that could ever away someone completely ruled by pathos.
"This is not anti-trans; this is not homophobic," Alford said. "If this were females in an oversexualized arena performing like this, I would be against it as well..."
Austin Higginbotham, a spokesman for Alford, did not return a request for comment asking whether the Missouri Republican condemned the risqué models present at the Joint Base Lewis-McChord air show.
Did not return a request for comment...because oversexualized women is okay, and his stance was entirely political theater to rationalize his bigotry.
I think conservatives are fine with skimpy models at events like this around children than drag shows because it contributes to compulsory heterosexuality (comphet), whereas drag shows - they assume - will make you gay if you watch them.
Their argument has been in the past year or so "sexualizing children," but as with many of their culture wars, there's the implied statement not said out loud: away from heterosexuality.
These folks still participate in purity pledges at daddy-daughter dances in which a prepubescent girl promises her sexual purity to her father until she is married off. Tell me that isn't sexualizing kids!
Nothing screams family frendly like an adult entertainment company sponsoring your supposed family friendly event. Get those go go dancers front and center for the kids.
Listen, dredging up phony "moral" outrage isn't just a time-consuming and difficult process of navigating lengthy and confusing doctrines. You also have to meet up with these people, ignore their obvious problems, and agree with them when they fly off the handle about one small minority group or another being the cause of all their problems. It's downright soul-crushing, I tells ya. Nobody appreciates being a good phony moral outrage dealer anymore.
Politics
Hot