Why can’t smart liberal lawyers say this bill is null because there isn’t a possibility of a fetal heartbeat until there is an actual heart. Beat these idiots at their own game by out sciencing them? They are factually wrong.
I was thinking last night, while I couldn't sleep -- what if the Justice Dept just doesn't bring the suit to the SC? What's to stop them from just saying "We recognize the Washington State judge's decision" (in the proper legalize)... Can they do that? And ignore the one out of Texas. Have the FDA carry on as they were. Mifepristone is sanctified and prescribed. Someone set me straight.
It depends on the specific actions the rulings order the FDA to do. They've indicated they don't want to disobey either ruling but if they conflict only the supreme court can tell them what to do.
NYTimes has an explainer. Danco saying it can't have two regulatory networks for pharmaceuticals. Well.... maybe it can. Why not? The blue states didn't vote for this, so let the pills be disseminated and regulated as such in those states and let the red states have their way. And so goes a divided nation.... T
Yes there is a breach. You are correct 👍. That’s why it’s such a big deal. Not only is my privacy to decide to have an abortion is taken away so is the confidentiality to save my life if it’s an emergency. They have to get permission from the enforcers! Absurd 😡
Regarding Florida’s decisions, which is obviously a tragedy for women not only in Florida, but in the South who went to Florida to get an abortion, one gets the strong impression that the GOP has painted itself in a corner over abortion. To be a credible candidate, De Santis has to pander to the extremist, so-called “pro-life” wing of its party, but at the same time, voters, including Republican voters, are not in their majority for abortion bans as the recent srries of electoral defeats has made clear... how crazy can you get?
I am sorry, but, being French, I am bewildered by the following: “It also requires a doctor who is providing a medically emergent abortion to “certify in writing that a medical emergency existed and explain the medical emergency in the written certification.”” Don’t you have medical confidentiality in the US?
Yes we do. However it appears in these cases that is compromised in order to provide emergency care. I’m not a legal expert. Maybe someone else can add to this.
Thank you, Mary! But in this case, the information doesn’t seem to be aimed at medical workers (who would carry the medical procedure), but at law-enforcers, who will decide whether or not it is an emergency justifying an abortion... or did I misunderstand? If my interpretation is right, there IS a breachnof medical confidentiality.
DeSantis signed the bill. WaPo has nauseating photo of two female legislators embracing. Astounding. Six weeks -- in essence a total ban. Hope they all get voted out.
Oh yes. Nothing would be better than Disney showing DeSantis what happens when you fuck with Mickey Mouse. Would be great for Disney's public image too - corporate citizen provides floating care centers for women. Smart too because their target audience skews young, meaning heavily pro-choice. They could do some other health care stuff on the ships too, lord knows there's always a need in this country. Maybe a floating children's hospital? It's a lovely dream anyway.
The funny thing is that turd really thinks he has a chance of being president. If Trump doesn't destroy him the Democratic nominee (even if it's Biden) will.
The Nebraska IVF language is mind-blowing. How they get to make up what's moral for expediency. They want to punish the woman for getting pregnant. Just like Texas has that bill to create a posse of fetal lawyers, some Nebraskans should create a bill for "IVF pre-born humans" -- how are they any less than the "Womb pre-born humans?" If I don't laugh, I cry.
It is all about punishing women's sexual behavior using motherhood as a justice system. That's it. Nothing more. Their only saving grace is marrying the right man.
Nebraska is supposed to be able to do a citizen initiative referendum, and I would think they probably will. I don't know what sand Republicans in the state can throw in the gears there. But it's better than a state where they don't have that option?
Didn't legal scholars think the mifepristone case was ridiculous from the get-go? Didn't they think it wouldn't hold up? Well now it's been held up twice by two conservative courts. What's to stop the extremely conservative SC from taking it up and issuing some sort of ruling that either upholds it, or hints at how to bring a suit another time that would take the drug off the market?
Yes. Anyone who is not biased by a personal opinion on abortion would say it broke a lot of rules about how things are supposed to work in the law and the courts. The question was always could the bastards come up with something credible enough for the supreme court to endorse. The satan's spawn in Amarillo probably didn't. You notice the initial ruling pissed off the big drug companies so it was a no-go. But the 5th circuit may have pared it so it just targets abortion which may be a lot more palatable to the court. Comes down to Justice Dirtbag (BK). I'm not holding my breath.
Yes. We ultimately need to generate the power ourselves. There are more of us and we have deeper resources. But the enemy is organized and we are not. Economic pressure and social disruption (which are related) would be two strategies. But they require organization; everyone has to know what to do. What organization there is on our side all seems to be so far behind the curve that we probably have to start from scratch. But it could work. People who are neither personally affected nor empathetic to those who are tend to be selfish, and selfish people tend to care about their money. That's my best idea anyway.
It is a ridiculous case. They just didn't think the court would be just as ridiculous. Kind of demonstrates what a bunch of crap the law profession is.
Abortion Every Day is a treasure chest of vital knowledge about the actual facts of gestation, so cunningly concealed or misrepresented by politicians. Ignorance is their only defense against actual malevolence.
Let’s all bow down to how “reasonable” they are being. They’ll make “exceptions” and “allowances”. OH THANK YOU for pretending to give a shit about whether we die or not. Like when a Republican does something that isn’t insanely extreme we all are just so IMPRESSED. Spare me! They don’t give a fuck and never will. “Pro life”?! What a fucking joke! So enraging, I can barely see or think straight.
If everyone who basically agrees with us on the issue was as angry about it as you are right here, then maybe we could actually do something about it. If there's any correlation between the comments section here and wider public opinion it's a promising sign that anger in the country may be ratcheting up.
It feels that our entire American society is run by dicks. Literally. Whatever mood a particular dick in charge is in. Are they happy with their dick? Are they sad? Could they not get it up? I feel every decision made about women, our futures, our health, our rights, is all hanging in the balance and it depends how small the dicks are who are in charge.
I love everything you just wrote lol I was think earlier today they should pull the same shit with Viagra that they did with mifepristone since it's literally ten times more dangerous. Gonna be some real small dick energy then
But seriously. Think of every war and argument and debate it’s always some pissed off man with a tiny dick. I would bet my entire life savings that trumps and putins are micro size.
Jesus can you imagine the whining? Dear god. If men had uteruses there would be birth control in vending machines and the whole economy would shut down every month to accommodate their synced up periods.
I'd really like to see the media engaging with what it means for a health exception to require "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." It's revolting. What is serious? 80%? 90%? Probably for these douches its 99%. And so a moderate risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function is just fine? Why should a legislator decide what risks I'm willing to take?? Any risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function is too much risk for me, which is one reason why I never want to be pregnant. That these legislators think they should get to make the decision is astounding. It becomes even more horrifying when you think about pregnant children. Pregnant girls -- since they are children and not physically ready to give birth -- are at huge risk of vesicovaginal fistula, a hole between the wall of the bladder and the vagina, and in a quarter of cases prolonged labor causes fistula of the rectum so a girl constantly leaks feces and urine. This damage can be repaired, but it requires a long recovery: fistula of the bladder takes about 5 weeks to heal, while. a rectal fistula needs four or five months. But I guess its REVERSIBLE so Republican legislators wouldn't view this as necessitating a health exception for a pregnant ten year old. They also don't give a shit that these girls are likely NOT to be able to afford prenatal healthcare (since wealthy parents are almost certainly going to manage to secure their daughter an abortion) and will be at huge risk of complications for this reason as well.
It's just infuriating! You're right -- would love to see more in-depth reporting on this in the media. And also reporting on the meaningless rape and incest exceptions.
Unless you live in Texas because Abbott said he was "eliminating rape."
OMG. I'm reading that link and am just horrified. Of course "exceptions" are meaningless. Someone in mainstream media has to do a story about this. This is tragic.
Agree 100%. My theory is that rape, like domestic violence is seen as a private matter more than an actual crime. In each case women are seen as at fault or at least complicit. The worldview of men like Abbott would be that a woman's natural place is to be forced to rely on a man for protection from other men. If the state stepped in to actually protect women and girls - beyond lip service and token efforts - they would in effect be undermining the natural gender hierarchy.
It's so true. It's just so awful And then I'm trying to wrap my head around women having to submit to 4-hour rape investigation sample collections, where they are scrubbed head to toe, so to speak. Add on top of that the reporting and the questioning, then getting "permission" to terminate a pregnancy should that be necessary. And there's a backlog? I can't fathom this. The misogyny is off the charts. And now add in the abortion bans. The doctors having to attest, and the affirmative defenses they have to make. The loss of patient privacy. And nitwits who have megaphones now saying bearing the child of a rapist would be "healing."
Women are appliances whose sole function is to give birth so of course they don't give flying f about our health. I'm certainly not having any babies either. They're complaining about the Great Replacement now they're def getting it after this white supremacist bull shit.
Got the term from Hasanabi on Discord. It was *the* perfect word to describe the way they view us since we're evidently less than livestock. They won't be satisfied until all women are Stepford wives. Not sure if I shared this article with you before but it is excellent.
Abortion and authoritarianism: Why women's freedom threatens male supremacy
The notion that men are superior to women is the root of all human inequality. That's why we must fight it
The 5th circuit opinion is diabolical. It presents itself as 'only' turning the clock back to 2016 as if that can't be a big deal. Even though of course the practical effect is to severely restrict the use of mifepristone when it's most needed (because of Dobbs). And wouldn't the Comstock Act raise problems for mailing misoprostol too?
Its audience is one man, Justice Dirtbag with his alcoholic brain damage (BK). If he thinks the argument is acceptable then it wins. If not it doesn't. We may have a good sense about that tomorrow depending on how scotus acts. We can hope for better but the precedent from Dobbs is three votes for the good guys, five votes for the bad guys, and the chief justice can't make up his fucking mind.
I think that the only way around the Comstock Act is to manufacture these drugs in each state so that no state lines need to be crossed in order to distribute. I have no idea if this is feasible…
I think all legislation should be automatically sunset after ten years and have to be renewed unless it's like social security or something. Something's gotta be done about this legislative ossification. Hardly anything can get done because of it.
This is all so awful but I did literally laugh out loud when I read Garlands quote “seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court”. From the same christianfascist corrupt sexually assaulting Supreme Court that took away our rights?
I'd actually like to see Merrick Garland lose his cool, and just go completely ballistic. Unlike with the president, I don't think his calmness is because he's a doofus. He resigned a lifetime seat on the DC circuit of appeals to become AG, which is just mind boggling and shows how important he views this job as. I've tended to think he would be a much better president than Biden or Harris, and I really wonder what's going on in his mind at this dark moment in our nation's history. But then maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah I'd have to see who else is listed there compared to who's not. Anyone who's been that high in the judiciary has likely had to engage with them. And the times are changing rapidly. But good point.
If someone has an explanation I'd be more than willing to listen. I guess I like the fact that he left the court to be AG because it told me he takes the Trump shit and the way he fucked up the DOJ very seriously. Also - and I admit this is my bias - I like that he's Jewish, because I think Jewish people especially understand how this kind of shit happens, that it could happen to anybody, and that yes it could happen again. So that's where I'm coming from; I definitely respect him more than I do Biden or Harris. But yes I absolutely could be wrong because I do tend to see the best in people.
Also I meant the situation in the country in general and not just this particular case. I think we're in grave danger and am waiting for someone, anyone, to act accordingly.
Could be, idk. I tend to attribute the behavior of these Democrats not to being institutionalists, but to lacking the foresight to see what danger we are truly in. I'd like to believe that SOMEBODY is smarter than that but who knows.
I think they remain institutionalists because they do not realize or in denial about the danger we are in. The only thing to do is to keep the pressure on.
This is usually my source for supreme court news: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/supreme-court-biden-administration-and-drug-manufacturer-ask-court-to-block-suspension-of-mifepristone-abortion-approval/
Why can’t smart liberal lawyers say this bill is null because there isn’t a possibility of a fetal heartbeat until there is an actual heart. Beat these idiots at their own game by out sciencing them? They are factually wrong.
Agree. And the Dems have to stifle that "Democrats allow abortion up till birth" nonsense. That's factually wrong, too. And they let it slide.
Because unfortunately some people don't live in reality.
I was thinking last night, while I couldn't sleep -- what if the Justice Dept just doesn't bring the suit to the SC? What's to stop them from just saying "We recognize the Washington State judge's decision" (in the proper legalize)... Can they do that? And ignore the one out of Texas. Have the FDA carry on as they were. Mifepristone is sanctified and prescribed. Someone set me straight.
It depends on the specific actions the rulings order the FDA to do. They've indicated they don't want to disobey either ruling but if they conflict only the supreme court can tell them what to do.
NYTimes has an explainer. Danco saying it can't have two regulatory networks for pharmaceuticals. Well.... maybe it can. Why not? The blue states didn't vote for this, so let the pills be disseminated and regulated as such in those states and let the red states have their way. And so goes a divided nation.... T
Yes there is a breach. You are correct 👍. That’s why it’s such a big deal. Not only is my privacy to decide to have an abortion is taken away so is the confidentiality to save my life if it’s an emergency. They have to get permission from the enforcers! Absurd 😡
Grace excellent work. Appreciate all you do!!🌷
Regarding Florida’s decisions, which is obviously a tragedy for women not only in Florida, but in the South who went to Florida to get an abortion, one gets the strong impression that the GOP has painted itself in a corner over abortion. To be a credible candidate, De Santis has to pander to the extremist, so-called “pro-life” wing of its party, but at the same time, voters, including Republican voters, are not in their majority for abortion bans as the recent srries of electoral defeats has made clear... how crazy can you get?
I am sorry, but, being French, I am bewildered by the following: “It also requires a doctor who is providing a medically emergent abortion to “certify in writing that a medical emergency existed and explain the medical emergency in the written certification.”” Don’t you have medical confidentiality in the US?
Yes we do. However it appears in these cases that is compromised in order to provide emergency care. I’m not a legal expert. Maybe someone else can add to this.
Sorry, Marcy, not Marry!
Thank you, Mary! But in this case, the information doesn’t seem to be aimed at medical workers (who would carry the medical procedure), but at law-enforcers, who will decide whether or not it is an emergency justifying an abortion... or did I misunderstand? If my interpretation is right, there IS a breachnof medical confidentiality.
DeSantis signed the bill. WaPo has nauseating photo of two female legislators embracing. Astounding. Six weeks -- in essence a total ban. Hope they all get voted out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/13/florida-abortion-six-week-ban/
I guess they'll have to start going to Cuba for care. Or somewhere else in the Caribbean or Latin America.
Maybe one of those Disney cruise ships out far enough in the water....
Oh yes. Nothing would be better than Disney showing DeSantis what happens when you fuck with Mickey Mouse. Would be great for Disney's public image too - corporate citizen provides floating care centers for women. Smart too because their target audience skews young, meaning heavily pro-choice. They could do some other health care stuff on the ships too, lord knows there's always a need in this country. Maybe a floating children's hospital? It's a lovely dream anyway.
The funny thing is that turd really thinks he has a chance of being president. If Trump doesn't destroy him the Democratic nominee (even if it's Biden) will.
The Nebraska IVF language is mind-blowing. How they get to make up what's moral for expediency. They want to punish the woman for getting pregnant. Just like Texas has that bill to create a posse of fetal lawyers, some Nebraskans should create a bill for "IVF pre-born humans" -- how are they any less than the "Womb pre-born humans?" If I don't laugh, I cry.
It is all about punishing women's sexual behavior using motherhood as a justice system. That's it. Nothing more. Their only saving grace is marrying the right man.
Nebraska is supposed to be able to do a citizen initiative referendum, and I would think they probably will. I don't know what sand Republicans in the state can throw in the gears there. But it's better than a state where they don't have that option?
Didn't legal scholars think the mifepristone case was ridiculous from the get-go? Didn't they think it wouldn't hold up? Well now it's been held up twice by two conservative courts. What's to stop the extremely conservative SC from taking it up and issuing some sort of ruling that either upholds it, or hints at how to bring a suit another time that would take the drug off the market?
Yes. Anyone who is not biased by a personal opinion on abortion would say it broke a lot of rules about how things are supposed to work in the law and the courts. The question was always could the bastards come up with something credible enough for the supreme court to endorse. The satan's spawn in Amarillo probably didn't. You notice the initial ruling pissed off the big drug companies so it was a no-go. But the 5th circuit may have pared it so it just targets abortion which may be a lot more palatable to the court. Comes down to Justice Dirtbag (BK). I'm not holding my breath.
That's what I fear - that the SC will issue a ruling affecting just abortion. And the other power players won't care much.
Yes. We ultimately need to generate the power ourselves. There are more of us and we have deeper resources. But the enemy is organized and we are not. Economic pressure and social disruption (which are related) would be two strategies. But they require organization; everyone has to know what to do. What organization there is on our side all seems to be so far behind the curve that we probably have to start from scratch. But it could work. People who are neither personally affected nor empathetic to those who are tend to be selfish, and selfish people tend to care about their money. That's my best idea anyway.
It is a ridiculous case. They just didn't think the court would be just as ridiculous. Kind of demonstrates what a bunch of crap the law profession is.
Yeah. All that 'law' amounts to is a way to justify power. It's just about how convincing you are.
Abortion Every Day is a treasure chest of vital knowledge about the actual facts of gestation, so cunningly concealed or misrepresented by politicians. Ignorance is their only defense against actual malevolence.
Let’s all bow down to how “reasonable” they are being. They’ll make “exceptions” and “allowances”. OH THANK YOU for pretending to give a shit about whether we die or not. Like when a Republican does something that isn’t insanely extreme we all are just so IMPRESSED. Spare me! They don’t give a fuck and never will. “Pro life”?! What a fucking joke! So enraging, I can barely see or think straight.
If everyone who basically agrees with us on the issue was as angry about it as you are right here, then maybe we could actually do something about it. If there's any correlation between the comments section here and wider public opinion it's a promising sign that anger in the country may be ratcheting up.
Once people in blue states start seeing red-state policies affect them, the sh-- might hit the fan.
I hope so. They should have been more empathetic in the first place.
It feels that our entire American society is run by dicks. Literally. Whatever mood a particular dick in charge is in. Are they happy with their dick? Are they sad? Could they not get it up? I feel every decision made about women, our futures, our health, our rights, is all hanging in the balance and it depends how small the dicks are who are in charge.
I love everything you just wrote lol I was think earlier today they should pull the same shit with Viagra that they did with mifepristone since it's literally ten times more dangerous. Gonna be some real small dick energy then
But seriously. Think of every war and argument and debate it’s always some pissed off man with a tiny dick. I would bet my entire life savings that trumps and putins are micro size.
Jesus can you imagine the whining? Dear god. If men had uteruses there would be birth control in vending machines and the whole economy would shut down every month to accommodate their synced up periods.
Speaking as a man, this is 100% correct.
😆🤣😂 man you crack me up
They wouldn’t be able to handle SHIT!
I'd really like to see the media engaging with what it means for a health exception to require "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." It's revolting. What is serious? 80%? 90%? Probably for these douches its 99%. And so a moderate risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function is just fine? Why should a legislator decide what risks I'm willing to take?? Any risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function is too much risk for me, which is one reason why I never want to be pregnant. That these legislators think they should get to make the decision is astounding. It becomes even more horrifying when you think about pregnant children. Pregnant girls -- since they are children and not physically ready to give birth -- are at huge risk of vesicovaginal fistula, a hole between the wall of the bladder and the vagina, and in a quarter of cases prolonged labor causes fistula of the rectum so a girl constantly leaks feces and urine. This damage can be repaired, but it requires a long recovery: fistula of the bladder takes about 5 weeks to heal, while. a rectal fistula needs four or five months. But I guess its REVERSIBLE so Republican legislators wouldn't view this as necessitating a health exception for a pregnant ten year old. They also don't give a shit that these girls are likely NOT to be able to afford prenatal healthcare (since wealthy parents are almost certainly going to manage to secure their daughter an abortion) and will be at huge risk of complications for this reason as well.
It's just infuriating! You're right -- would love to see more in-depth reporting on this in the media. And also reporting on the meaningless rape and incest exceptions.
Unless you live in Texas because Abbott said he was "eliminating rape."
Ugh! He could start by testing the nearly 2000 backlogged rape kits in Dallas alone. (source: https://www.endthebacklog.org/state/texas/)
OMG. I'm reading that link and am just horrified. Of course "exceptions" are meaningless. Someone in mainstream media has to do a story about this. This is tragic.
Agree 100%. My theory is that rape, like domestic violence is seen as a private matter more than an actual crime. In each case women are seen as at fault or at least complicit. The worldview of men like Abbott would be that a woman's natural place is to be forced to rely on a man for protection from other men. If the state stepped in to actually protect women and girls - beyond lip service and token efforts - they would in effect be undermining the natural gender hierarchy.
This exactly.
It's so true. It's just so awful And then I'm trying to wrap my head around women having to submit to 4-hour rape investigation sample collections, where they are scrubbed head to toe, so to speak. Add on top of that the reporting and the questioning, then getting "permission" to terminate a pregnancy should that be necessary. And there's a backlog? I can't fathom this. The misogyny is off the charts. And now add in the abortion bans. The doctors having to attest, and the affirmative defenses they have to make. The loss of patient privacy. And nitwits who have megaphones now saying bearing the child of a rapist would be "healing."
Well poor people don’t deserve decent healthcare or rights. In the USA anyway! Pro Life™️
Women are appliances whose sole function is to give birth so of course they don't give flying f about our health. I'm certainly not having any babies either. They're complaining about the Great Replacement now they're def getting it after this white supremacist bull shit.
Very true. Appliances, that’s the perfect word for how they see people with uteri. Uteruses?
Got the term from Hasanabi on Discord. It was *the* perfect word to describe the way they view us since we're evidently less than livestock. They won't be satisfied until all women are Stepford wives. Not sure if I shared this article with you before but it is excellent.
Abortion and authoritarianism: Why women's freedom threatens male supremacy
The notion that men are superior to women is the root of all human inequality. That's why we must fight it
https://www.salon.com/2022/10/23/abortion-and-authoritarianism-why-womens-freedom-threatens-male-supremacy/
Right! I think militarism is a big part of the belief system. Women's power is a powerful threat to the culture of death they valorize.
Totally agree and will mos def read this!! Thanks for the link!
And no provision for the mental health of the mother, which is so wrong.
The 5th circuit opinion is diabolical. It presents itself as 'only' turning the clock back to 2016 as if that can't be a big deal. Even though of course the practical effect is to severely restrict the use of mifepristone when it's most needed (because of Dobbs). And wouldn't the Comstock Act raise problems for mailing misoprostol too?
Its audience is one man, Justice Dirtbag with his alcoholic brain damage (BK). If he thinks the argument is acceptable then it wins. If not it doesn't. We may have a good sense about that tomorrow depending on how scotus acts. We can hope for better but the precedent from Dobbs is three votes for the good guys, five votes for the bad guys, and the chief justice can't make up his fucking mind.
I think that the only way around the Comstock Act is to manufacture these drugs in each state so that no state lines need to be crossed in order to distribute. I have no idea if this is feasible…
I was blown away that the Comstock Act was even still on the books.
I know! We need to get rid of all this legal “underbrush”!
I think all legislation should be automatically sunset after ten years and have to be renewed unless it's like social security or something. Something's gotta be done about this legislative ossification. Hardly anything can get done because of it.
This is all so awful but I did literally laugh out loud when I read Garlands quote “seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court”. From the same christianfascist corrupt sexually assaulting Supreme Court that took away our rights?
Holla
I'd actually like to see Merrick Garland lose his cool, and just go completely ballistic. Unlike with the president, I don't think his calmness is because he's a doofus. He resigned a lifetime seat on the DC circuit of appeals to become AG, which is just mind boggling and shows how important he views this job as. I've tended to think he would be a much better president than Biden or Harris, and I really wonder what's going on in his mind at this dark moment in our nation's history. But then maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, no. Not gonna happen.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland
Yeah I'd have to see who else is listed there compared to who's not. Anyone who's been that high in the judiciary has likely had to engage with them. And the times are changing rapidly. But good point.
Try as I might, I'm unable to locate an Eric Holder fanpage or a Loretta Lynch fanpage. Just Garland. They sure seem to like him.
Wonder why?
If someone has an explanation I'd be more than willing to listen. I guess I like the fact that he left the court to be AG because it told me he takes the Trump shit and the way he fucked up the DOJ very seriously. Also - and I admit this is my bias - I like that he's Jewish, because I think Jewish people especially understand how this kind of shit happens, that it could happen to anybody, and that yes it could happen again. So that's where I'm coming from; I definitely respect him more than I do Biden or Harris. But yes I absolutely could be wrong because I do tend to see the best in people.
It looks like he’s spoken at events they held. Scroll down. Didn’t sound outrageous to me.
Very unlikely. He is too much of an institutionalist. Likely reaction will be to shrug his shoulders with a loss and say that he tried.
Also I meant the situation in the country in general and not just this particular case. I think we're in grave danger and am waiting for someone, anyone, to act accordingly.
Could be, idk. I tend to attribute the behavior of these Democrats not to being institutionalists, but to lacking the foresight to see what danger we are truly in. I'd like to believe that SOMEBODY is smarter than that but who knows.
Masha Gessen would say that Democrats lack a “catastrophic imagination.” They don’t seem capable of thinking two steps ahead.
Honestly, too many of them want to win the argument but not the fight. Exasperating.
I think they remain institutionalists because they do not realize or in denial about the danger we are in. The only thing to do is to keep the pressure on.
Very possible and I very much agree we need the pressure. Either they change and defend the people or we replace them with someone who will.
Yeah I know right? I was like are they kidding?