Is there value in determining whether a bright line between description and hyperbole exists, and if so, where it lies?
I don’t care if they’re literally stupid. I also don’t care about the decades they’ve been played for suckers. They currently display the same worldview and willingness to accept new ideas as young children or adults with exceptionally low IQs, so for all intents and purposes they’re stupid.
Okay. I’m not sure how that is helpful, unless you are arguing for a tyranny of the “enlightened”, but regardless, carving up the country based upon political identity is only a solution to the question of “How best to start a civil war?”
Stranger
It’s not.
I’m just so tired of knowing that nearly half the voters in this country are so dense, so deluded and so far gone that there’s no chance we’ll return to any semblance of sane political progress in my lifetime, and that if they get their way most of my son’s life will be lived in a declining kleptocracy.
Maybe, but this really flies in the face common sense, given the cowardice we’ve seen from Senate Republicans in the face of Trump and his base. I find it just as likely that Pence pulls the stunt, and everyone else falls in line, as Republicans have done for most of Trumpworld’s worst outrages.
You think the Supreme Court would do that? I’m looking at a court that was 33% appointed by Trump, who declined to defend settled judicial precedent in Texas S.B. 8, a blatantly unconstitutional violation of rights and a direct attack on established SCOTUS precedent. I think it’s incredibly naive to think such a compromised, partisan court would impartially step in as you seem to think.
There’s no value in callow dismissal of evidence in front of your face. I mean, except for self-delusion.
Huh? Texas SB 8 has just NOW, as in yesterday, made it on the docket for the Supreme Court.
They can’t rule on something without that case percolating up through the appellate courts and so on.
And actually that case still isn’t quite SB8 being on the docket, it’s a full hearing about whether the Justice Department has standing to intervene; there’s a case involving an actual OBGYN who has admitted he has performed a banned abortion under SB8, that is in the very earliest stages of litigation, it has a long way to go before it is ever at the Supreme Court level (which is why most attention is on the current Justice Department lawsuit.)
They certainly can, and did. They were petitioned to temporarily block the law from taking effect pending a full review. On midnight September 4th they announced that they weren’t going to do so, effectively nullifying Roe v. Wade in Texas.
A court that’s willing to stomp on its own precedents, in a cowardly midnight ruling that declines to take any action… it’s just not credible that this court will stand up decisively for democracy.
Exactly the point. The process is long and convoluted. SCOTUS knows this, and chose to let this unconstitutional law stand anyhow. You can’t tell me with a straight face that this court can be relied upon for a vigorous and timely defense of constitutional rights. They’ll slow-roll it to get the outcome desired by the party that got them appointed, just as they’re doing with SB8.
Again, SCOTUS did have a choice to act expeditiously on SB8, and expressly chose not to do so. The facts aren’t in dispute.
For reasons already given, I doubt that.
But what I am really sure of is that if we split, the Supreme Court in D.C. will have no ability whatsoever to stop something in Texas.
I believe it’s possible, yes. I’m not exactly worried about the left right now because they’re not the ones undermining democratic norms right now.
Radical left-wing groups certainly do exist and commit terrorist attacks in America. Most of these have an environmental/animal rights focus (that’s not an excuse; I’m just pointing out that they’re not looking to overthrow the government) but there are also a small number of more politically-motivated left-wing groups.
But decades of FBI data still shows that they are currently vastly overshadowed by the number of radical right-wing and white nationalist terrorist groups, cells and individuals planning or committing attacks in America. And I suspect this is because the right-wing media and politicians are deliberately fomenting violent insurgency.
Have to disagree. The country is browning faster than you think.
That’s just global warming.
Again, it’s not about the color of the people – it’s about the structure of the system. If the proportion of POC grows in states and districts that are already blue, it won’t make any difference in the overall “color” of our governments. We’ll only see a significant impact if the “browning” extends to states and districts that are mostly white today. Any evidence that’s happening?
Well, with the current Texas gerrymandering the opposite is happening. More POC in the population, less districts with majority POC.
Exactly.
I am curious to learn if formerly purplish states such as Iowa do have growing POC populations. Districts within a state might be gerrymandered, but state borders don’t change, so a “browner” Iowa might eventually elect more Dem senators and presidential electors.
(Assuming, of course, that “brown” = “blue.” I know that’s not a given.)
Can’t we just tell the confederate states that we’ve changed our minds? And toss in West Virginia as a gesture of goodwill?
But we’re keeping Real Virginia this time.
Absolutely.
Also, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and the Dakotas will be merged into a single state. Windam. Population roughly 7 million. Two US senators is plenty.
What I totally don’t get about the argument that red states contain pockets of blue which contain pockets of red etc. (and vice-versa) so it’s not FAAAAAIR to make people live in places that aren’t nice to them…isn’t that the exact situation we’re seeking to overhaul? Did anyone seeking a two-state solution, so to speak, ever suggest that even with expedited migration you could ever have 100% of any country completely satisfied with the country they live in? Or even 80%? It’s a given that you’re going to have unhappy people trapped in a hostile environment the more geographic divisions you create. DUH?
But the really unhappy ones can move to a friendlier environment, and the ones who don’t want to move, well, I guess they’re not so unhappy.
You don’t suppose everyone living in the Union from 1861-1865 was opposed to slavery, do you? But maybe we would have been better off to split into two countries instead of fighting a bloody war that is in some very real senses still going on.