Believes in an ideology which valorizes greed and selfishness
Complains when fellow believers in that ideology use their education to become fossil fuel execs, Supreme Court justices, and hedge fund managers instead of doing a teaching job which requires more effort and pays way less.
Remember when I was like "It's weird that a lot of movies have villains that had trauma that 'turned them evil' as a trope"
The thing is, this isn't even true for Voldemort. By the text of the story, he was just Intrinsically Evil™ and even as a child he was always the one hurting bullying other people and not the one being bullied. So this is one of the worst possible choices of villains they could have used.
Two months after a prominent conservative activist and fundraiser was caught hosting white supremacist Nick Fuentes, leaders of the Republican Party of Texas have voted against barring the party from associating with known Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers.
In a 32-29 vote on Saturday, members of the Texas GOP’s executive committee stripped a pro-Israel resolution of a clause that would have included the ban. In a separate move that stunned some members, roughly half of the board also tried to prevent a record of their vote from being kept.
There is no better representation of US politics right now than being pro-Israel while simultaneously refusing to stop associating with Nazis.
Is there evidence that the currently existing laws you refer to are doing this?
The context under which the laws were created can change the overall effects of implementing the law, even if the exact text doesn't change. The 24-week laws were most likely created just as abortion was moving from illegal/grey-area/taboo to legal/generally accepted, so it would read more so as a law to specifically allow abortions up to 24 weeks for any reason, rather than a law which is meant to specifically restrict something. Given that it is very rare for abortions that fall under this law to actually be carried out, there hasn't be a real reason to look for it historically, so it is effectively unenforced.
However, if such a restriction was newly created, it would be moving away from a situation where abortion being legal is the status quo, so it would in effect be a law which imposes additional restrictions, rather than a law that mostly removes pre-existing restrictions. The creation of a new restriction indicates that there was no enforcement before, and thus implies that new enforcement is required. How do you create an enforcement mechanism that isn't trivially bypassed (i.e. having a given doctor just lie about the age of the fetus or level of danger towards the mother) without placing a burden on abortions that supposedly would stay legal (like some sort of verification requirement)? Especially when the religious right will try to push restrictions as far as possible? The status quo of "effectively no enforcement" (at the federal level and the state level in most blue states anyways) seems vastly preferable to the most likely results of trying to enforce anything.
Seems like a political freebie to dull the point on a polarizing wedge issue.
I don't think this is true. There is a momentum to public opinion, and adding a new restriction would push momentum in favor of the anti-abortion movement, whereas currently existing 24-week laws were created in a context where momentum was moving in favor of the pro-abortion movement. I think it's hard to deny that a newly created law is easier for right-wingers to capitalize on compared to an old law that has always been pretty much unenforced.
Even if this was passed, the right-wing media would still lie and say that millions of fully-formed babies were being killed. The only people this would convince are those who 1) would not fall for the aforementioned lie 2) consider the 24-week mark to be the most important moral distinction with respect to fetal personhood (i.e. do not believe in "life at conception" or "first heartbeat") 3) do not consider 0.05% (likely a huge overestimate) of abortions being "unjustified" to be acceptable in the name of protecting abortion rights. I don't think there are many people that fulfill all of those criteria.
Given that the benefit of such a law is pretty minimal even in the best case, raising the issue seems like a bad idea so long as the religious right still exists.
Migrant workers who produce half the food in the country: Not needed for the revolutionary movement
Women who perform hours of unpaid childcare labor in addition to a 40-hour workweek: Not needed for the revolutionary movement
White guys who are paid $200,000 per year to eat donuts and harass minorities: Absolutely essential to the revolutionary movement, even hinting to them that they should maybe re-examine their biases should be anathema
From the article:
However, even with the huge price mark-up in America, the Chinese cancer drugs will still be priced significantly less than similar drugs sold in the US.
"From the river to the sea: that's how wide our roads should be"
A liberal might think that Ronald Reagan was a great president
It is true, of course, that if people want the government to act in illiberal ways — by, for example, censoring speech, violating the rights of religious believers, preventing certain people from voting, entrenching racial inequality, taking private property without just compensation, mandating a particular kind of prayer in schools or endorsing a particular set of religious convictions — liberals will stand in opposition.
Hey, could you remind me what Ronald Reagan thought about apartheid South Africa?
Milei opposes abortion rights, and has publicly affirmed a staunch anti-abortion stance, saying that abortion violates the non-aggression principle; he sees it as a property conflict or issue of ownership, and drew comparisons between abortion and theft.
Milei spoke in favor of a legal organ trade, seeing as a way to reduce waiting lists for organ transplants, and said that there could be market mechanisms to encourage organ donors. He said: "If women can have control over their bodies, why not everybody else?" In a June 2022 interview, when asked about his stance on the sale of children, Milei initially said that "it depends".
Oh god, repealing that law is going to open the way for Elon Musk to run isn't it.