They grasp the concept. The concept is literally irrelevant to not only the entire GOP but also to the entire executive branch. Because the process of SCOTUS capture is complete, and gerrymandering has crippled the electoral college to the point of disproportionate representation serving as a Constitutional norm, and local electioneering has rendered the GOP majority legitimately permanent by operation of law, there is no correction forthcoming.
Concepts like "harm" and "rights" are anachronisms.
If a decision benefits the plutocrats in favor of the GOP's social platform - anti-minority, anti-female, anti-civil-rights, openly racist, openly sexist, anti-rule-of-law, anti-separation-of-church-and-state, anti-gay, nationalistic, isolationist, anti-intellectual, anti-voting, anti-democratic-principles, anti-humna-rights - then that decision has not done "harm." Doesn't matter who suffers, because the people suffering are not qualified to experience a type of "harm" that has political, social or economic relevance to this worldview. We are nearing the point where such "suffering of the other" will not even have legal relevance.
Similarly, it is the right of conservative white christian nationalist males not to have to tolerate the exercise of "rights" by anyone in any other group. That is what a "right" is in America - a white male person not having to live in a country where other people do things he doesn't like. Any other exercise of a purported "right" by any other category of individual is in fact an infringement upon the "right" of the conservative white christian nationalist male to dictate what everyone else may and may not say or do or earn or benefit from.
Please consider, for a moment, that I in good faith believe this post to be entirely true. That is American politics. The GOP and the right truly believe every shred or what I just said, and more. That's the state of the country. I don't know how many times I previously said these things over the last two years, but I don't think the demonstrations of the truth of the foregoing - the cold, hard, irrefutable factual nature of this diagnosis - can possibly be ignored any longer.
I'll add that I get that a person like pwnsall, for example, will deny this while simultaneously celebrating it. He's trolling, and celebrating, from a position of power - he has picked the side that will openly harm him, but he's okay with that because they will not challenge his views in any way and they have certainly won.
Let us once more give a round of meek applause to not only the democratic party but the entire institution of the "left" in the United States, from universities to politicians to activists to business, for collectively committing at least four unforgivable sins of naivete and still continuing to commit the same systematic errors as demonstrations of their faith in a world of policy and law that doesn't actually exist: (1) underestimating the campaign of the right in terms of scope, virulence and moral decrepitude; (2) overestimating the "robust" nature of the "checks and balances" of our system of governance; (3) never once rising to the competition and playing for keeps; and (4) insisting upon the "objective" and "fair" exchange of ideas as a first principle without once diagnosing the rhetorical imbalance resulting from "the high road," while the GOP and right have gained advantage from and made a mockery of this naivete for every single year of my earthly life.
Even now, we continue to see democrats "planning" to take advantage of GOP "mistakes" and "mean" actions later, in the manner of David opting to utilize papyrus leaflets against Goliath. The left - its professors, philosophers, lawyers, cultural commentators, public thinkers, politicians - is too smart to accept what I'm saying because they've been taught for too long that I can't possibly be right, but simultaneously not quite smart enough to recognize their entire lives have been a process of being wrong about everything that matters, and that they have to accept that their battle has already been lost.
What is McTurtle's play here? He seems hellbent to vote on this even thiugh it's certain to fail.
My only thought is that heknows this isn't going to pass in any meaningful way and a public failure will let them blame dems for obstructing and move on to tax breaks or something.
i think he though it had a shot at passing maybe, then when it came out from total secrecy even some scumbag gopers were appalled by it he's gonna pivot to blame the dems (which seemed like was the initial house strategy)
they're going to outright lie about the bill saying that premiums would have gone down, more people would've been insured, god would have rained down manna from heaven if not for the god damn hollywood liberals like nancy pelosi.
Similarly, it is the right of conservative white christian nationalist males not to have to tolerate the exercise of "rights" by anyone in any other group. That is what a "right" is in America - a white male person not having to live in a country where other people do things he doesn't like. Any other exercise of a purported "right" by any other category of individual is in fact an infringement upon the "right" of the conservative white christian nationalist male to dictate what everyone else may and may not say or do or earn or benefit from.
What is McTurtle's play here? He seems hellbent to vote on this even thiugh it's certain to fail.
My only thought is that heknows this isn't going to pass in any meaningful way and a public failure will let them blame dems for obstructing and move on to tax breaks or something.
Wait, so we're taking Ted Cruz at his word on how he's voting?
Wait, so we're taking Ted Cruz at his word on how he's voting?
Kind of? I mean we started with a margin of error of 2 "no"s and got 5 right off the bat. Then we add whomever doesn't want a bit of this now very well documented **** pie and it doesn't seem like even if Cruz pulls a switcheroo that they'll have the votes.
You are pretty confused. Trump fans don't think words mean anything and that they can be used to mean literally whatever the person using them wants them to mean. Take that liberals!
.
SC ruling does not have good implications unsurprisingly.
Hoya, take solace that in 4 or 6 or 8 years the dems will be back in power and selling out on economic justice issues for the "right" to jail someone if they don't use a person's preferred pronoun. Which will end up negatively affecting minorities more than whites anyway.
I'd be curious what the breakdown of that 2 vs 4 is? I may be misunderstanding but I thought Collins, Heller, and Cassidy were all on the side of thinking this bill is pretty evil.
