Strange to say, but I kinda think that your words are too optimistic. A tiny majority (roughly speaking?) of the nation saw Trumpism for what it was years ago. But what are they gonna do? For the foreseeable future it seems that there are too many Trumpists, too many blind/apathetic "moderates," and too many un-competitive political races.
You are confused on who the minority is...
Over 80% of Americans still believe in God whether they go to church or not.
Over 60% of Americans live in the South and Midwest.
If Trump had a better personality Biden loses in 2020 by 20 million votes.
There's a reason 2022 is shaping up to be an historic bloodbath for the Democrats and it sure as hell isn't because you idiots are the majority.
Ah yes, the "personality" argument is never far away. My god.
And what the hell does god or the geographic distribution of Americans have to do with what fraction of Americans did not and will not support Trump? Nothing.
Your knuckle-dragging utterly consumes you. Instead of having the minor intellect and maturity to say, "Yeah, Trumpism has (high) minority support, but lucky for me, it's still good enough to rule," no, you HAVE TO scream that the other side IS the minority. Because you're too insecure and pathetic to simply see the world as it is, and deal with it.
Again, unfortunately, I think that your last sentence is too optimistic. As we all know, a large fraction of the U.S. has been convinced to overlook/excuse terrible behavior (to include election stealing) in the service of feeding their grievance, preferred tribalism, "anti-liberalness," etc. If you'll do all that, HOW BAD do any NEW R policies or actions need to be before you're willing to switch sides? Not happening ANYTIME soon.
Of course, I suppose you could be suggesting that the southern/red state "moderates" could finally turn. But just like the straight Trumpers, they've been watching this show for a long time and it hasn't been enough to wake them up (again, see last fall's VA and NJ races). Will a noticeable uptick in obnoxious R behavior substantially change that? I highly doubt it.
I disagree. Trump's insurrection won us two senate seats here in Georgia. With enough motivation, red states can turn blue.
Yes, that was nice. But you've seen the predictions for this fall, right? If you find optimism in that, more power to you.....but......
Oh, and the government could force you to take vaccines. At least that is my understanding of this decision. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that way. SCOTUS says you don't have a right to say what happens to your own body. Anti-vaxxers would be out of luck.
*State* governments can already force you to take vaccines. That's already well established. If your logic were applied to vaccines, every state, local, and school district vaccine requirement would have to be struck down.
Federal governments can't require vaccines, just like in many scholar's opinion the federal government can't ban abortion. Not in Congress's enumerated powers. That's not what Roe v. Wade was about.
While I am strongly pro-life and I believe that the unborn are worthy of government protection, I also have compassion for women. I don't believe that anyone enters into the decision of abortion lightly. And I hate it that women will now go back to seeking back-ally abortions and risk prosecution. If the abortion question were put up for a vote, a man's vote should count a lot less than a woman's vote.
If Alito's draft decision were to become law, it may have some frightening side effects. Roe v. Wade is based on an earlier decision that upheld the right to use birth control. According to some experts, this would strike that down as well. And it would threaten the entire concept of a right to privacy.
So some states could outlaw the pill and condoms. They could outlaw vasectomies, tubal ligation, or really any surgery they want.
Actually, when you say that no one enters into the decision of abortion lightly, that is false. Many women get pregnant all the time and it is just routine to them to just go abort the baby. They treat the fetus very lightly. They don't care at all about the fetus. Just something to do away with.
Gotta agree. Simply not in line with human nature. OF COURSE there are selfish women. It doesn't help the pro-choice argument when they pretend that's not the case.
Infinitely more weighty, of course, but pretty much JUST LIKE when pro-teacher folks say (all the time) that there are NO bad teachers !!! My lord.
But hey, I guess it's America! Who needs accuracy? Nuance? Truth and honesty?! Things are just ALL one way or ALL the other !!!
Oh, and the government could force you to take vaccines. At least that is my understanding of this decision. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that way. SCOTUS says you don't have a right to say what happens to your own body. Anti-vaxxers would be out of luck.
In other words, you don't understand the decision at all...
Oh, please enlighten us with your deep knowledge of constitutional law. I can't wait for this.
While I am strongly pro-life and I believe that the unborn are worthy of government protection, I also have compassion for women. I don't believe that anyone enters into the decision of abortion lightly. And I hate it that women will now go back to seeking back-ally abortions and risk prosecution. If the abortion question were put up for a vote, a man's vote should count a lot less than a woman's vote.
If Alito's draft decision were to become law, it may have some frightening side effects. Roe v. Wade is based on an earlier decision that upheld the right to use birth control. According to some experts, this would strike that down as well. And it would threaten the entire concept of a right to privacy.
So some states could outlaw the pill and condoms. They could outlaw vasectomies, tubal ligation, or really any surgery they want.
Actually, when you say that no one enters into the decision of abortion lightly, that is false. Many women get pregnant all the time and it is just routine to them to just go abort the baby. They treat the fetus very lightly. They don't care at all about the fetus. Just something to do away with.
You are dead wrong. And you obviously think very little of women in general.
Actually, when you say that no one enters into the decision of abortion lightly, that is false. Many women get pregnant all the time and it is just routine to them to just go abort the baby. They treat the fetus very lightly. They don't care at all about the fetus. Just something to do away with.
I remember a girl in my high school who had already had like 7 abortions by senior year. You think she entered the decision of abortion wiith much consideration?
I remember a girl in my high school who had already had like 7 abortions by senior year. You think she entered the decision of abortion wiith much consideration?
You are lying.
This is certainly true. She's a Trumpette - lying is what Sally does.
Oh, and the government could force you to take vaccines. At least that is my understanding of this decision. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that way. SCOTUS says you don't have a right to say what happens to your own body. Anti-vaxxers would be out of luck.
*State* governments can already force you to take vaccines. That's already well established. If your logic were applied to vaccines, every state, local, and school district vaccine requirement would have to be struck down.
Federal governments can't require vaccines, just like in many scholar's opinion the federal government can't ban abortion. Not in Congress's enumerated powers. That's not what Roe v. Wade was about.
Yes, it would be state governments. And this could strengthen vaccine requirements to go beyond public schools.
Actually, when you say that no one enters into the decision of abortion lightly, that is false. Many women get pregnant all the time and it is just routine to them to just go abort the baby. They treat the fetus very lightly. They don't care at all about the fetus. Just something to do away with.
You are dead wrong. And you obviously think very little of women in general.
That was my initial reaction as well. But it depends on how one interprets Sally's words (let's pretend they are EVER worth deciphering).
Certainly it is the case that some women enter into the decision of abortion lightly. One can always find some people who do/say/think almost anything. Given that this is quite a large country, one could reasonably justify the use of the word "many" to describe the number of women who "routinely" get abortions.
On the other hand, it is obvious to anyone with a brain, who actually knows real people, that the vast majority of women who enter into the decision of abortion do not do so lightly. As such, Sally's use of the word, "many", is disingenuous at best - but not mathematically incorrect.
As to Sally "thinking very little of women in general" - I would just shorten it to; Sally thinks very little (if at all).
Over 80% of Americans still believe in God whether they go to church or not.
Over 60% of Americans live in the South and Midwest.
If Trump had a better personality Biden loses in 2020 by 20 million votes.
There's a reason 2022 is shaping up to be an historic bloodbath for the Democrats and it sure as hell isn't because you idiots are the majority.
Ah yes, the "personality" argument is never far away. My god.
And what the hell does god or the geographic distribution of Americans have to do with what fraction of Americans did not and will not support Trump? Nothing.
Your knuckle-dragging utterly consumes you. Instead of having the minor intellect and maturity to say, "Yeah, Trumpism has (high) minority support, but lucky for me, it's still good enough to rule," no, you HAVE TO scream that the other side IS the minority. Because you're too insecure and pathetic to simply see the world as it is, and deal with it.
What exactly do you think "Trumpism" is?
On policy Trump was a moderate and he did very well.
His flaw was his personality.
Because I'm not an imbecile I would prefer good policies attached to a flawed personality over an 80 year old who doesn't know what day it is with horrible policies.
You are dead wrong. And you obviously think very little of women in general.
That was my initial reaction as well. But it depends on how one interprets Sally's words (let's pretend they are EVER worth deciphering).
Certainly it is the case that some women enter into the decision of abortion lightly. One can always find some people who do/say/think almost anything. Given that this is quite a large country, one could reasonably justify the use of the word "many" to describe the number of women who "routinely" get abortions.
On the other hand, it is obvious to anyone with a brain, who actually knows real people, that the vast majority of women who enter into the decision of abortion do not do so lightly. As such, Sally's use of the word, "many", is disingenuous at best - but not mathematically incorrect.
As to Sally "thinking very little of women in general" - I would just shorten it to; Sally thinks very little (if at all).
I couldn't agree more.
Obviously, you are correct that you can always find some people who do/say/think almost anything. And obviously, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
*State* governments can already force you to take vaccines. That's already well established. If your logic were applied to vaccines, every state, local, and school district vaccine requirement would have to be struck down.
Federal governments can't require vaccines, just like in many scholar's opinion the federal government can't ban abortion. Not in Congress's enumerated powers. That's not what Roe v. Wade was about.
Yes, it would be state governments. And this could strengthen vaccine requirements to go beyond public schools.
What was holding back more vaccine mandates at the state levels? If they are a violation of the 4th amendment then every rinky dink school district vaccine mandates would have been struck down already.
Joe-Boom continues. Jobs for everyone, rising wages, record corporate profits., nearly 6% economic growth.
Here, record job openings. Best economy ever, mag/as? What think ye?
Today:
Job openings and the number of times workers quit reached the highest levels on record in March, the Labor Department said, as a shortage of available workers continued to pressure the U.S. labor market. The Labor Department on Tuesday reported a seasonally adjusted 11.5 million job openings in March, an increase from 11.3 million the prior month. The number of times workers quit their jobs rose to 4.5 million in the same month, slightly higher than the previous record in November of last year. Meanwhile, hiring cooled slightly from the month before to 6.7 million in March.
Yes, it would be state governments. And this could strengthen vaccine requirements to go beyond public schools.
What was holding back more vaccine mandates at the state levels? If they are a violation of the 4th amendment then every rinky dink school district vaccine mandates would have been struck down already.
There have been several successful challenges to vaccine mandates over the years. It just seems to me that the Alito decision would strengthen the government's hand in the future.
Joe-Boom continues. Jobs for everyone, rising wages, record corporate profits., nearly 6% economic growth.
Here, record job openings. Best economy ever, mag/as? What think ye?
Today:
Job openings and the number of times workers quit reached the highest levels on record in March, the Labor Department said, as a shortage of available workers continued to pressure the U.S. labor market. The Labor Department on Tuesday reported a seasonally adjusted 11.5 million job openings in March, an increase from 11.3 million the prior month. The number of times workers quit their jobs rose to 4.5 million in the same month, slightly higher than the previous record in November of last year. Meanwhile, hiring cooled slightly from the month before to 6.7 million in March.
The only people who think Biden's economy is booming are the LR cult of libidiots. You guys live in la la land.