Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Thanks for all this information, Real Music, it's really good to know.

I know that. I never said they were...and I never inferred that they were.



I know that. I said that.



I know what the difference is...and have never suggested that I do not.

So...ummm...what is your point?

Sometimes I think some people don’t realize what a kind of ‘schoolmarm teaching the locals the basics’ tone that some of their posts have.
They spell things out as if either an explanation was asked for, or ignorance on the subject had been shown.

I’m pretty sure it’s not done maliciously, but dang it’s irritating.

I didn't see his post as a specific correction of anything you said – for the reasons you list. I thought of it as a general clarification of terms which get used interchangeably quite often. I found it helpful.

I enjoyed this article. If you're triggered by either Nancy Pelosi or Maureen Dowd, just skip it.

I enjoyed it to. A little more insight.

Who are you “triggered by”, Hightor?

This talk about welfare reminded me of this quote by Wanda

“I’m a black, gay woman. I think the only way for the GOP to hate me more is if I sent them a video of me rolling around on a pile of welfare checks.” - Wanda Sykes

Yeah, it does. I hope I didn't over do the response I made. I can, at times, be quick on the trigger.

I get ya. As I said to Snood, sometimes I'm too quick on the trigger. (These days, I hate that expression.)

I've been down on Dowd for a long time, but I truly enjoyed the article when I read it this morning. She did a great job with this one.

As for Nancy...she will go down in history as one, if not "THE" best!

The Anti-Abortion Movement Could Lose Control of the GOP
Ed Kilgore
Sunday, January 22, is the 50th anniversary of the announcement of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that acknowledged a federal constitutional right to abortion. It’s also the first Roe anniversary since the decision was flatly reversed by the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. And so, as The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey observes, the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., is a little unfocused this year:



It’s as though Captain Ahab suddenly harpooned Moby Dick and had to figure out his next step in life.

Dobbs triggered much celebration and self-congratulation among anti-abortion activists: Their decades-long strategy of undermining Roe via Supreme Court appointments by Republican presidents had finally borne fruit. But this development was obviously just a condition precedent to the movement’s ultimate goal of banning abortion entirely and everywhere. It raised a lot of new and difficult questions about where to move next and how quickly to do so while fundamentally changing the dynamics of the abortion debate.

Since the central legal battle has now been resolved, the most urgent task for anti-abortion activists is to rethink their alliance with the Republican politicians they rely on for further progress in ending reproductive rights. Yes, there have always been considerable differences of opinion within the anti-abortion ranks over strategy, tactics, and rhetoric. But intra-movement arguments that were largely theoretical when Roe was in place are suddenly very real, and their resolution must be coordinated with GOP elected officials, candidates, and opinion leaders. There is no question that while Dobbs led quickly to abortion bans wherever they were possible, it also produced a sea change in public opinion that has to be troubling to those for whom reversing Roe was just the starting point.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that, post-Dobbs, 24 states have enacted some sort of previously unconstitutional abortion ban. But at the same time, the abortion-rights side won every 2022 ballot test on abortion policy including three in the deep-red states of Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana and another in the key battleground state of Michigan. Perhaps of equal significance, candidates from a Republican Party that had maintained a steady partnership with the anti-abortion movement since at least 1980 ran away from the issue as quickly as it could in most competitive election contests. At the federal level, Republicans hid behind the ancient and entirely insincere pre-Dobbs claim that they wanted only to return the issue to the states. (If you think of fetuses as “babies” with an inalienable “right to life,” then that’s a contemptuous dodge; today, as in the antebellum era, “states’ rights” is just a veil for more absolute policy goals, whether it’s slavery or forced birth.) And in states where voters were allowed to weigh in, Republicans sometimes shrugged and deferred to the abortion-rights majority of public opinion.

So the challenge before anti-abortion activists isn’t just to reach internal consensus over short- and long-term goals and tactics; they also need to reimpose discipline on the GOP and its shifty politicians. Fortunately for these activists, they will have a lever via their influence on what looks to be a highly competitive 2024 GOP presidential nominating contest. Republican presidential candidates will find that support for a federal abortion ban is an absolute condition for the movement’s support. At the same time, Republicans at the state and local levels will be pressed to work toward the most extreme abortion policies that are politically viable wherever they run or hold office. If Republicans candidates stick with their impulse to avoid this sensitive issue, it could be deadly for the future of the “right to life” movement.

For all the post-Dobbs excitement over “babies being saved,” the anti-abortion movement needs to quickly make ground on public opinion or increase its control of GOP candidates. If it fails to do so, it could see the reemergence of pro-choice Republican candidates and elected officials, a nearly extinct species until now but one that could command some significant grassroots support within the party along with crossover appeal. If that happens, the nation’s abortion-rights majority will impose its will sooner or later, and reproductive rights may gain recognition nearly everywhere in law, if not in the Constitution.

Interestingly, there were a few commentators who predicted something like this way back when we still thought RvW was secure. They noticed that the GOP, even when it was in power, never really moved to ban the procedure nationwide once and for all. No, they let the courts chip away at the edges while the practice remained legal. As long as the practice remained legal, the mandatory birth activists would keep shoveling money and votes at Republican candidates.

I'm a trigger-er, not a trigger-ee.

It’s very impressive, I must say. Someone invulnerable to petty disturbances or pet peeves being poked by any particular persons or personalities, while simultaneously having savant-like perception of the propensity for those kinds of disturbances (and the people and personalities that “trigger” them) in others.

How evolved you are.

Yeah, okay. But I certainly don't possess this " savant-like perception" you ascribe to me – the truth is more mundane. Without intending to, I just manage to piss people off. Here, I'll rewrite the offending post:

"I enjoyed this article. If you don't like Maureen Dowd or aren't interested in what she has to say about Nancy Pelosi, just skip it."

I didn't even see your "who are you triggered by" question until this morning and I thought you were making a joke, hence my facetious response. I didn't expect you, or anyone else, to take it seriously or find it at all provocative.

Dude I don’t take you any more seriously than you take yourself.

Precisely. And they would retain an easy-to-understand evil enemy to galvanize Evangelicals' activism.

Now and again you get a bit porcupine-ish with folks who deem you a friend. I don't say this to correct you but rather just to petition you to never do this to me as I'm sickly and fragile and have trouble maintaining a boner.

Refer to my DM. And don’t tone-police me, “friend”.