Is the level of disobedience unusual, how widespread it is through-out all Governors or typical? It is difficult for me to judge...
We have always had little pops of resistance but it can often be within a state in opposition to a governor. For instance, Oregon counties last year complaining about Portland and creating alliances within sheriff organizations to prosecute rioters. Or in Virginia, counties passed "Second Amendment sanctuary" resolutions that said they were not going to comply with certain gun control laws. They were somewhat toothless but were pretty big symbolic acts of resistance.
And sometimes that's all they need to be to make people back down. If you are not willing to send in soldiers, and you aren't because it would be an optics disaster, then just compromise on the law, and everyone will be happy.
Also trending on twitter now:
View attachment 2528395
The
article is complete trash:
This doesn't work. The people killed that day were innocent. I don't feel any responsibility for the bullshit schemes our governments do without telling us. It all falls on them. I am never going to feel guilty for what they have done. Every time we try to reform them, they scapegoat
innocent Americans like this article. I have nothing but contempt for them and nothing but respect for the common people of this country who have been made to suffer for mistakes our rulers will not hold themselves accountable for.
Recognizing this and recognizing that they are absolute enemies does not require you to give up your beliefs, it requires you to not believe in theirs.
and I would argue the one being forced on to us now isn't just unfair, but satanic and evil, in its origins, methods, and destination.
They have a totalizing belief system that operates as a religion, or as you say, an antireligion, with good and evil switched. I think there is already a clear difference between us and them, as it's a stretch for them to say "leaving people alone" is too dramatic an imposition for us to put on them, that
that is totalizing. We don't believe in their ideology because it requires force to impose, and they want to impose things not previously agreed upon by the states. It would not be a "purge" to expel all agents of the government who will not agree that the Constitution places
limits on their powers, not a minimum of things they can meddle with. They are continuously breaking the contract of federalism, the nature of government, the definition of "inalienable." We can be rigid in those beliefs, which empowers and requires us to not compromise with people who will not sign onto the beliefs that built the country, that 13 colonies could all agree on without fracturing.
DeSantis is a good example of how to do it. Be petty and sly and totally dismissive of the left's policies because you can back up with facts that they are opposed to the Constitution. Lay it out and say you are fighting
for something, for the people being screwed over by them. "We are doing this. Try to come up with an argument against it that doesn't twist the Constitution into a mockery." At least make them be honest about who they are before you stomp on their dreams.
Brilliant politics by Trump. He avoids the Cabal of former presidents who got us into Afghanistan and meets directly with the people who risked everything to save people's lives that day. The imagery is that he is proud of them, whereas any memorial ceremonies are somber. They are necessary and good too, but if Trump were to play nice with the former presidents, he would lose his identity as a man of the people, which going to New York City does while still honoring the lives changed there.
When he visited NYPD he also teased another run in 2024 the same way he did on Hannity (I can't say anything because of campaign finance rules but I think you'll be very happy). Does anyone actually know what rule he's referring to?
Basically it affects how much money they can raise and spend. You have to report "quarterly" earnings once you have an official campaign, so you can time it so you get a huge burst of funds and get to report how much money you made as positive free press. Before you announce, you have to keep track of how much money you are raising and spending to "test the waters," but you don't have to report it until it's official. So when he officially says he's running, they get to track all the money coming in from there on, and if it's weaker than expected, that's bad press for him. He wants to give himself a good starting point of his choosing.
I will stay sore forever after reading Gorsuch's book where he talked about how the Supreme Court trying to rewrite legislation is consistently a major cause of future problems, only to watch him make the decision that the 1964 Civil Rights Act totally meant to include gender identity the whole time you guys.
This is a misread of that ruling. It specifically said the act did NOT include gender identity. Instead, the arguments were that not allowing men to cross-dress at work is a form of
sex discrimination, because a woman doing the same actions would not be punished. I hate the ruling, but the lawyers built their arguments around the language of the text, which they knew a textualist like Gorsuch would find persuasive. But it does not acknowledge gender identity at all, which is why Dems are still pushing the Equal Rights Act to try to codify it.