And now I understand why the public school system, controlled by a left-wing labor union, has gutted civics and U.S. history (other than Howard Zinn-style revisionism) from their curricula. An educated and mentally engaged public would never fall for these sophistries.
4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The SCOTUS and federal judges in the lower courts are all that stands between us and tyranny. If Harris is elected, the only thing that stands between the SCOTUS and tyranny is a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. So far, the pollsters are predicting that Republicans will take the Senate back in November, which is one source of hope.
I fear your mostly center of the road, slightly right, voice is now obliterated. I'm sorry about that, it was a well structured voice of reason against both far-left and far-right. I appreciated that voice. The most recent articles focused on politics are not that. I agree with you that the far left is too much, but so is the far right - as I know you agree. If MTG thinks President Trump's new pal is too much, that tells me something right there. And according to local law enforcement, no one is eating pets as was claimed during the nationally televised debate, which I watched. More than that, having an unhinged elderly President who salutes world dictators and said Viktor Orban thinks he was a great President (see the debate transcript), is not the President I want setting national policy and picking judges for 4 years. We tried that once and ended up removing a 50-year right for our daughters to have a say in their own bodies in many states of our union. Your paragraphs on totalitarianism apply here - and all the same arguments you made apply to far right policies. I'm sure you see this, too. I do think you owe it to yourself to dig a bit deeper into Vice President Harris' work as a DA in California and Senator. I believe you will find her more conservative than you imagine, and certainly not on the far-left. So, in Pennsylvania my entire family will be casting our votes for Harris. I'll add that if Congress stays majority Republican and the Senate also stays close to 50/50, if any major decisions are made, they will be a compromise solutions. I could share more of my reasons, but I'll stop here saying I do hope you will continuing weighing pros and cons of your choice and voice, and of course I hope you and all your readers vote. That is the most important thing.
Maybe I'll add that it does seem to be a bit of "disinformation" that certainly got a lot of people wound around the axle. I do think that disinformation intended to convince anyone of something untrue that impacts our choices for leaders is a problem. It is complicated when it's viewed in light of our 1st amendment rights. Do I think that particular blip of a story means anything in end? No, not really. We have other more important concerns than that. On this, we agree.
Nothing at all, nor do I think I implied it did. It was meant to add color to my argument that, in my opinion, President Trump is not fit for a second term. On that, neither does my comment on Viktor Orban, MTGs opinions, or anything else I wrote have anything to do with the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
And now I understand why the public school system, controlled by a left-wing labor union, has gutted civics and U.S. history (other than Howard Zinn-style revisionism) from their curricula. An educated and mentally engaged public would never fall for these sophistries.
4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The SCOTUS and federal judges in the lower courts are all that stands between us and tyranny. If Harris is elected, the only thing that stands between the SCOTUS and tyranny is a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. So far, the pollsters are predicting that Republicans will take the Senate back in November, which is one source of hope.
I fear your mostly center of the road, slightly right, voice is now obliterated. I'm sorry about that, it was a well structured voice of reason against both far-left and far-right. I appreciated that voice. The most recent articles focused on politics are not that. I agree with you that the far left is too much, but so is the far right - as I know you agree. If MTG thinks President Trump's new pal is too much, that tells me something right there. And according to local law enforcement, no one is eating pets as was claimed during the nationally televised debate, which I watched. More than that, having an unhinged elderly President who salutes world dictators and said Viktor Orban thinks he was a great President (see the debate transcript), is not the President I want setting national policy and picking judges for 4 years. We tried that once and ended up removing a 50-year right for our daughters to have a say in their own bodies in many states of our union. Your paragraphs on totalitarianism apply here - and all the same arguments you made apply to far right policies. I'm sure you see this, too. I do think you owe it to yourself to dig a bit deeper into Vice President Harris' work as a DA in California and Senator. I believe you will find her more conservative than you imagine, and certainly not on the far-left. So, in Pennsylvania my entire family will be casting our votes for Harris. I'll add that if Congress stays majority Republican and the Senate also stays close to 50/50, if any major decisions are made, they will be a compromise solutions. I could share more of my reasons, but I'll stop here saying I do hope you will continuing weighing pros and cons of your choice and voice, and of course I hope you and all your readers vote. That is the most important thing.
What the fuck, Fred, does eating pets have to do with the First and Second Amendment?
Maybe I'll add that it does seem to be a bit of "disinformation" that certainly got a lot of people wound around the axle. I do think that disinformation intended to convince anyone of something untrue that impacts our choices for leaders is a problem. It is complicated when it's viewed in light of our 1st amendment rights. Do I think that particular blip of a story means anything in end? No, not really. We have other more important concerns than that. On this, we agree.
Nothing at all, nor do I think I implied it did. It was meant to add color to my argument that, in my opinion, President Trump is not fit for a second term. On that, neither does my comment on Viktor Orban, MTGs opinions, or anything else I wrote have anything to do with the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
Great article Martin. When are You going to be a Gate City Coffee again? Thanks, John Knight