I would suggest that using the word "hysterical" in response to women being concerned about a decision that would open the door to criminalization of abortion even at the point of conception is itself "hysterical" in phrasing how women should be reacting in the moment. If you don't want hyperbole, then refrain from it yourself. Thanks.
Actually Dred Scott was never technically reversed. It was simply made moot by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. A country cannot permanently remain half slave or half free. It will become all one thing or the other.
Now, conservatives and even some liberals often deride any comparison between today and the pre-Civil War period. But tell me, after the violence at the capitol, the increasing vitriol between politicians and between voters, the refusal to find common ground, and the increasing extremism of the right in this country, how can anyone ignore the similarities? We can no longer pretend and must face reality, a national split is becoming a real possibility. Before anyone claims that I am being hyperbolic, consider this:
- In 1846, men like Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, US Grant, Stonewall Jackson all fought together in the Mexican American War.
- in 1848, a general from that war was elected POTUS
- In 1852, Jeff Davis, and many other future confederate leaders served in Pierce Administration.
- In 1860, Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens opposed secession for their respective states, as did Robert E Lee.
- in 1861, we were in active conflict at Bull Run.
Don’t be fooled by the idea that because we are all currently watching football together or working together that somehow it cannot all flip on a dime.
This is what Mitch did say about social security when he was interviewed on camera many years ago: "there are fifty million piglets sucking on the teats of government". He then proclaimed "this problem" needed to be addressed. It's not unbelievable to think he would want it eliminated. I don't think that would happen because recipients would revolt but he has spent years criticizing it.
You okay with Forbes magazine, or is that "fake news"?
"Donald Trump won’t say it, but Republicans in the Senate will: Social Security and Medicare would be on the chopping block in a second Trump term. Pointing to rising deficits, Republican senators have all but promised to gut entitlements if Trump gets four more years.
Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the second-ranking Senate Republican, expressed hope to the New York Times that Trump would be “interested” in reforming Social Security and Medicare. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was even more optimistic. “We’ve brought it up with President Trump, who has talked about it being a second-term project,” Barrasso said. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret of wanting to cut Social Security. "
You claimed in your comment that McConnell said he wanted to get rid of social security. Then you post a couple paragraphs from an article which doesn't say that at all.
The only reason I have to agree with you about Republicans not taking care of Social Security is -- to do it properly, is governance -- public policy to solve problems (and hopefully also benefit your constituency) --and the party has entirely abandoned governance as even something they have any interest in. And a huge core of their base is the very proletariat that Mitt called "takers" who pay no income tax. The only platform all Republicans publicly acknowledge is whatever Trump (or whichever trick-or-treat Charlie follows or deposes him) says on any given day. That, and squeezing non-base voters out of the electorate.
Yes, I mean by "governance" what one does in a polity to make and execute laws for the benefit of the commonwealth. As opposed to "rule", which is what prevails in a one-party state. And yes, as soon as Trump returns to office, the R's will abolish the filibuster, and "repeal and replace" such things as the voting rights act. Although that will be superfluous, since the voting rights act requires a functional Justice Department, and the Justice Department will be nothing more than a mob of servile consulari serving the gangster in chief and his fellow mobsters.
I would suggest that using the word "hysterical" in response to women being concerned about a decision that would open the door to criminalization of abortion even at the point of conception is itself "hysterical" in phrasing how women should be reacting in the moment. If you don't want hyperbole, then refrain from it yourself. Thanks.
Robert is 100% correct.
Actually Dred Scott was never technically reversed. It was simply made moot by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Abraham Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. A country cannot permanently remain half slave or half free. It will become all one thing or the other.
Now, conservatives and even some liberals often deride any comparison between today and the pre-Civil War period. But tell me, after the violence at the capitol, the increasing vitriol between politicians and between voters, the refusal to find common ground, and the increasing extremism of the right in this country, how can anyone ignore the similarities? We can no longer pretend and must face reality, a national split is becoming a real possibility. Before anyone claims that I am being hyperbolic, consider this:
- In 1846, men like Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, US Grant, Stonewall Jackson all fought together in the Mexican American War.
- in 1848, a general from that war was elected POTUS
- In 1852, Jeff Davis, and many other future confederate leaders served in Pierce Administration.
- In 1860, Jeff Davis and Alexander Stephens opposed secession for their respective states, as did Robert E Lee.
- in 1861, we were in active conflict at Bull Run.
Don’t be fooled by the idea that because we are all currently watching football together or working together that somehow it cannot all flip on a dime.
It has happened before and can happen again.
Comparing Dred Scott to Roe v Wade, is false equivalence and intellectually lazy. Alito sounds more like an op-ed than actual legal reasoning.
As opposed to Roe? Roe had no legal reasoning whatsoever. It was strictly a policy decision that had no basis in the constitution or law.
Those claims were made by Mitch McConnell himself. It's one of his goals - to end Social Security and Medicare. Google it.
This is what Mitch did say about social security when he was interviewed on camera many years ago: "there are fifty million piglets sucking on the teats of government". He then proclaimed "this problem" needed to be addressed. It's not unbelievable to think he would want it eliminated. I don't think that would happen because recipients would revolt but he has spent years criticizing it.
You okay with Forbes magazine, or is that "fake news"?
"Donald Trump won’t say it, but Republicans in the Senate will: Social Security and Medicare would be on the chopping block in a second Trump term. Pointing to rising deficits, Republican senators have all but promised to gut entitlements if Trump gets four more years.
Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the second-ranking Senate Republican, expressed hope to the New York Times that Trump would be “interested” in reforming Social Security and Medicare. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was even more optimistic. “We’ve brought it up with President Trump, who has talked about it being a second-term project,” Barrasso said. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret of wanting to cut Social Security. "
You claimed in your comment that McConnell said he wanted to get rid of social security. Then you post a couple paragraphs from an article which doesn't say that at all.
Agree
Who cares what Senator Scott thinks? He doesn't hold a leadership position in the Senate.
The only reason I have to agree with you about Republicans not taking care of Social Security is -- to do it properly, is governance -- public policy to solve problems (and hopefully also benefit your constituency) --and the party has entirely abandoned governance as even something they have any interest in. And a huge core of their base is the very proletariat that Mitt called "takers" who pay no income tax. The only platform all Republicans publicly acknowledge is whatever Trump (or whichever trick-or-treat Charlie follows or deposes him) says on any given day. That, and squeezing non-base voters out of the electorate.
Yes, I mean by "governance" what one does in a polity to make and execute laws for the benefit of the commonwealth. As opposed to "rule", which is what prevails in a one-party state. And yes, as soon as Trump returns to office, the R's will abolish the filibuster, and "repeal and replace" such things as the voting rights act. Although that will be superfluous, since the voting rights act requires a functional Justice Department, and the Justice Department will be nothing more than a mob of servile consulari serving the gangster in chief and his fellow mobsters.