I thought the idea was that Republicans are actively working on destroying what has been working fine and is benefitting lots of people, not just on preventing more progress.
Of course we’re not but “the supreme court bans something good because it’s not explicitly allowed in a 200 year old document” is a goddamn accurate statement lol
It’s painful to admit, but American politicians do not actually represent Americans. Over 80% of us believe abortion should be legal under some if not all circumstances. We are being held hostage by an ignorant minority.
It’s purposefully hyperbolic to illustrate a point. You think that Finland is seriously making all ice cream free?
I would not be the least bit surprised if all the Abbotts and Thomases and Trumps and Desantises (Desanti?) announced tomorrow that they would no longer be supporting the ADA’s immoral drain on commercial profits governmental budgets.
And before someone points it out, gutting a system that he has personally benefited from to fuck over Texans is exactly the kind of thing Abbott would do.
Just read through some of the responses I’ve gotten. Some people think it’s a good illustration because it’s very plausible. Some because it’s not at all plausible.
I’m saying it’s not a good illustration because it’s not at all plausible.
I don’t think it makes much difference whether or not it is plausible. It’s just trying to communicate a message. I guess it has to be plausible enough that a reader can understand what it is even talking about; but not so plausible that the reader is led to believe this specific case is actually happening.
Of all the things you could reasonably criticize the US over, wheelchair accessibility ain’t one of them. Especially compared to Europe.
I thought the idea was that Republicans are actively working on destroying what has been working fine and is benefitting lots of people, not just on preventing more progress.
On the other hand, disallowin wheelchair ramps because there are not mentioned in the Bible would be a very American move.
Equal access to every building? Sounds like a commie plot.
Americans are not the caricatures of evil and malice you seem to think we are.
Of course we’re not but “the supreme court bans something good because it’s not explicitly allowed in a 200 year old document” is a goddamn accurate statement lol
You are currently debating whether hospitals can let women die instead of performing abortions
It’s painful to admit, but American politicians do not actually represent Americans. Over 80% of us believe abortion should be legal under some if not all circumstances. We are being held hostage by an ignorant minority.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
If your politicians don’t represent the people, what the heck are they doing?
Or, why do your people still vote for them?
Because the party that most people don’t vote for have become exceedingly adept at gaming the system.
Then do something about it.
But your other party won’t change it either, because they use the same loopholes.
It’s purposefully hyperbolic to illustrate a point. You think that Finland is seriously making all ice cream free?
I would not be the least bit surprised if all the Abbotts and Thomases and Trumps and Desantises (Desanti?) announced tomorrow that they would no longer be supporting the ADA’s immoral drain on
commercial profitsgovernmental budgets.And before someone points it out, gutting a system that he has personally benefited from to fuck over Texans is exactly the kind of thing Abbott would do.
They would never make the fish flavored ice cream free. The economy would collapse.
My point is that it’s not a good illustration.
Just read through some of the responses I’ve gotten. Some people think it’s a good illustration because it’s very plausible. Some because it’s not at all plausible.
I’m saying it’s not a good illustration because it’s not at all plausible.
Other than all the conservative efforts to destroy the ADA I guess.
I don’t think it makes much difference whether or not it is plausible. It’s just trying to communicate a message. I guess it has to be plausible enough that a reader can understand what it is even talking about; but not so plausible that the reader is led to believe this specific case is actually happening.