Democrats have spent the last several decade legitimizing GOP positions, often running on ill advised Republican-Lite platforms. Look at the HILARIOUS campaign of Amy McGrath, where she ran on a platform of McConnell not being sufficiently loyal to Trump.
Democrats appoint Republicans to office all the time, so no matter who you vote for, you get Republicans. Remember Obama over representing GOP on the super committee and on Simpson Bowles, in addition to passing a watered down, profits first version of the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation that Mitt Romney passed as governor of MA? Good stuff.
Or Bill Clinton passing all the business give-aways that GHWB couldn't get passed, like NAFTA (hello supply chain issues!), Gramm-Leach-Blighly (hello deregulated Wall Street and a return to the boom and bust economy of pre- Glass Steagall).
And of course you have Pelosi and Clyburn campaigning on behalf of Cuellar, who fights against everything the Dem establishment pretends to care about (this charming man is anti-abortion, pro-gun - and they were stumping for him in the weeks of the SCOTUS leak and the Uvalde shooting) against someone who actually supports those policies - Jessica Cisneros.
Of course they don't care. They make a fortune off their insider trading, no-show lucrative sinecures, and $400k/hour giving lectures to the grateful finance ghouls gutting the working and middle classes for fun and profit.
This is the key claim in the decision. The most obvious but uncomfortable truth: “Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.’”
I think the Jill Stein/Clinton ambivalence thing by the left in 2016 is completely inexcusable on its face. Unacceptable and reckless behavior, even if we can’t know exactly how much of a difference it made.
Also, to somehow suggest that Obama should not have supported the most qualified candidate and potential first woman President is unthinkable and would have been indefensible. No one in the field of Ds was anywhere close to HC in qualifications. As for “appeal” compared to Biden or others, still not enough to have made a different decision.
And thank you for the reminder on the RBG decision. No excuse.
A few things that bear mention:
Democrats have spent the last several decade legitimizing GOP positions, often running on ill advised Republican-Lite platforms. Look at the HILARIOUS campaign of Amy McGrath, where she ran on a platform of McConnell not being sufficiently loyal to Trump.
Democrats appoint Republicans to office all the time, so no matter who you vote for, you get Republicans. Remember Obama over representing GOP on the super committee and on Simpson Bowles, in addition to passing a watered down, profits first version of the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation that Mitt Romney passed as governor of MA? Good stuff.
Or Bill Clinton passing all the business give-aways that GHWB couldn't get passed, like NAFTA (hello supply chain issues!), Gramm-Leach-Blighly (hello deregulated Wall Street and a return to the boom and bust economy of pre- Glass Steagall).
And of course you have Pelosi and Clyburn campaigning on behalf of Cuellar, who fights against everything the Dem establishment pretends to care about (this charming man is anti-abortion, pro-gun - and they were stumping for him in the weeks of the SCOTUS leak and the Uvalde shooting) against someone who actually supports those policies - Jessica Cisneros.
Of course they don't care. They make a fortune off their insider trading, no-show lucrative sinecures, and $400k/hour giving lectures to the grateful finance ghouls gutting the working and middle classes for fun and profit.
This is the key claim in the decision. The most obvious but uncomfortable truth: “Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.’”
🙄
I think the Jill Stein/Clinton ambivalence thing by the left in 2016 is completely inexcusable on its face. Unacceptable and reckless behavior, even if we can’t know exactly how much of a difference it made.
Also, to somehow suggest that Obama should not have supported the most qualified candidate and potential first woman President is unthinkable and would have been indefensible. No one in the field of Ds was anywhere close to HC in qualifications. As for “appeal” compared to Biden or others, still not enough to have made a different decision.
And thank you for the reminder on the RBG decision. No excuse.