Leaper:
Jon Chait fears the answer is “very”:
It goes on to detail how he could use reconciliation to get it passed by simple majority, especially if his victory gives enough Republican votes in the Senate.
Obviously, this would be popular with Republicans and bother liberals a little , but what about the rest of the nation? How would the voters in general handle such a thing? Is there any reason he wouldn’t do this, Chait’s beliefs notwithstanding?
If the question is “will the nation stand for it?” the the answer is “is there going to be a new war between now and the next election to distract the voters?”
You’ve made this assertion repeatedly, as if you think Romney can milk “But they didn’t saaaaaaaaaaaay it was terrorism” for 90 minutes. Last night’s debate poked several gaping holes in the Romney/Ryan foreign policy plan. Ryan was unable to state what he’d do differently in Afghanistan or Iran, tripped over his own words when he said a humanitarian crisis wasn’t good enough justification for “boots on the ground” after saying Obama wasn’t doing enough in Syria, and made himself look like a fool when he accused Obama of turning his back on Israel. These are things Obama will be able to take Romney to task over.
You don’t need to twist the term; you just need to take it at face value. Which is why the answer to the thread title is “yes”.
I didn’t say that it was; in fact, I specifically said that it wasn’t.
Or work for any number of people who will find excuses to fire you if they discover you aren’t religious.
It’s not the same thing. Religions are institutions, not just individuals.
:rolleyes: Or it might have something to do with the polls showing how disdained atheists are, and political leaders from the Presidents on down openly regarding atheists as evil and traitorous.
And this reality-denying insistence that atheists aren’t a hated minority just underlines how hypocritical the people who make speeches about “white privilege” actually are. And that it has nothing to do with any desire for social justice.