Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

We should be concerned about endangered moths. Hard enough to get people to care about other people.

If the president can ignore the court, the court can ignore the laws.

Of course, down that road lies. . . well, we passed Madness a while back. Not sure where this road leads, anymore.

Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.

As you observe, that’s one reason we don’t have one.

I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.

The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.

The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.

The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.

As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?

When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice.

Democrat Party

This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.

The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.

Do you think the news just appears on webpages for us to consume?

Particularly in the case of investigative journalism, there is a skill involved in writing the stories, and it consumes the time and effort of many people.

Charging money for your work is not “gatekeeping.” It’s how you keep eating.

Best we keep reminding them of it.

I’ve made up my mind already that if they try to take me or my wife, they are gonna have to kill me, and I’m gonna try as hard as I can not too die alone.

Of course, that’s big talk from me. I’m weak, overweight, and pasty.

I think you (and everyone else) have lost the thread, mate. He was replying directly to the question “why can’t they just stay in Europe.” The answer is “Europe had immigration laws.”

I don’t see anything wrong with this exchange.

I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.

“States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.

The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

“States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.

Huh. TIL. I had always thought that I could get in the deep shit for that.

if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase “states rights.”

I think it’s already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.

Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.

. . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?

Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”

Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.

I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

This is starts rights, unless I’m misunderstanding.