That has already been been done: individuals at birth one set of rights and again at 18 they get another set of rights. Those rights tend to be a combination of rights granted by both states and the federal governments. The GOP and religious folks want to change the definition if "individual" to apply before birth and remove the existing rights of women.
Please spare me from saying one side is immune to any criticism from within based on the errors of the other.
All democrats do is complain it’s not enough and half heartedly vote. Let’s have more of that
I dunno, probably that lazy internal criticism and cynicism masked in the trappings of education but often borne of ignorance gets you the validation and acceptance.
That's what I hear. Mostly from you, but that's what I hear. When you aren't calling me a communist.
That's what I hear. Mostly from you, but that's what I hear. When you aren't calling me a communist.
There's a lot of political diversity within the Republican party, and I'll agree in some ways more, but I won't agree in most ways more. I think most of the reason the Democrats look at all united is policy-wise, 80% of Americans believe in a slew of progressive policies we don't have or don't have fully, which includes often half of Republicans, and those policies are priorities to most Americans as well, and Republicans are fully united on blocking those changes. So every Democrat seems to magically want say the same 8 things, but actually most Republicans do too, or at least most of them. And so it's all the other stuff Democrats disagree on that is kept out of sight to begin with.
There are people around here (New England) who like to describe themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" who voted for Ronald Reagan and Barrack Obama, elected Bill Weld and Mitt Romney governor, but always send Democrats to the Senate. I've always felt a little itchy by their too-tidy separation of social and economic and/or foreign policy issues, since they're all tied up together. Back in the '80s-'90s, I had a friend who delineated the parties by foreign and domestic policy; he bought into the nonsense that Republicans were stronger on foreign trade and national defense. Again, made me itchy. If I scratch the surface of many of these folks' ideas, I often find a wealthy, college-educated, upper-middle class White person who really only cares about their own property and their own family, and for whom 99% of social issues are other people's problems. They'll say they feel bad about the drugs crisis du jour as they're driving their kids to private school, but ask them to pay another .001% in taxes and suddenly they'll get upset and declare 'I worked for my money', as if people who use SNAP just don't work hard enough.
But that's the narrative, from there, looking out here. Yes, "as if the people who use SNAP just don't work hard enough," like Egon puts it. But however you situate the blame, the Rs were in charge when school lunches happened, and the Ds when they axed it. I'm going to harp on that one until the dillrods put it back. So probably for a good long time. The rest is clever accounting the likes of which "totes isn't tax evasion." Everyone knows where the people who work hard, but are getting shafted on the value of their labor, live. Whole sections of cities(unless they've been priced out entirely). But if you take the time to tease out the cultural differences in language, you've got whole goddamned swathes of the country measured in states that work that way. Most "regional" cities(that mostly seems a political term for cities that are Republican-leaning, it's so reliable). Why does Lex think I'll be reborn a communist? Why do some people want America to be great again? Ah, right. They're probably just mostly traitor-following rasists. Like that lolnarrative.
