Worst. Advice. Ever.
The whole "vote for her because we hate Trump more" rhetoric is exactly why we have this pair of dullards running for office, and why millions of Americans that aren't enamored with either of them will still cast their vote for their respective shrunk-wrapped brands of democracy.
Neither of the major parties has even come close to earning my vote, which is why I will proudly vote for a third party. At least I'll be able to look people in the eyes and tell them that I voted my conscience, instead of trying to pick the lesser of the evils -- a more daunting task in this election than any prior election I've been old enough to vote in.
"And let's further assume that President Sanders or Clinton wants to restore the American dream for working-class Americans and has a viable plan to do so ..."
Thank you for my morning laugh.
Donald, what psychologist is going to risk his/her license administrating this "test" and making a suitability recommendation? Are the courts ready for the onslaught of appeals from people whose condition disqualified them from owning a gun, not to mention the endless debate around which diagnoses would disqualify a person?
The idea is a non-starter for one other key reason: constitutional rights aren't narrowly carved out for a small portion of the population that we deem worthy. I mean, if you support this, would you support literacy tests for voters?
Go ahead and try to get the NRA's support ... you'd have a better chance of getting them to endorse Hillary Clinton.
".. thanks to Obama ...". Thanks. I needed a good belly laugh this morning.
"$9.5 billion in federal aid ... at no cost to state taxpayers". That's right: because federal aid money grows on trees.
The NC General Assembly can continue to blame the Democrats as long as Obama keeps blaming Bush. I expect neither to stop soon.
I hope Al McSurely is a better lawyer than he is a historian. His statement that abolitionists "were motivated by their sense of morality" is patently incorrect, and it completely undermines the point of his letter.
The antebellum abolition movement had almost nothing to do with "morality," in the sense of achieving justice for Blacks. Yes, there were a few isolated pockets of people who had the moral interests of African Americans at heart, but these were the rare exceptions to the rule. The schism over slavery between the North and the South (and internally between most of the Southern states) had to do with the imbalance of *white* political power that the institution of slavery represented—through, for instance, the 3/5ths clause. To be clear: the North could be as virulently anti-black as the South, and groups like the American Colonization Society (based in New Jersey) had every interest in seeing Blacks removed from America. Dystopian as it may seem to us now, the dream of a lily-white America was very much a national sentiment at the time, and the differences stemmed largely from disagreements about how to achieve that goal.
The present-day NAACP may want to think twice about hitching itself to the abolitionists of the antebellum and Civil War era. Presenting the struggle for abolitionism as a purely moralistic crusade is the worst sort of historical revisionism.
I can see why Jackie Holcombe is unemployed if this is her definition of "well representing their constituents". The mayor of Chapel Hill—a so-called attorney—doesn't even seem to understand the basics of the laws he claims to represent. (insert obligatory jokes about a UNC-CH degree here)
The really funny thing is that these same arm-flappers that don't want us "meddlesome" people in their city business will be the first ones getting arrested at the State Legislature building for attempting to force their brand of politics down our collective throats. Of course, they're welcome to keep coming to Raleigh ... and we'll keep coming to Chapel Hill to shovel it back onto them. The difference, of course, is that we won't get arrested in the process.
Oh, and we'll keep winning.
Limiting the rights of citizens to make them "safer" is an insidious and disingenuous as her willingness to flaunt her UNC PHD (it's almost too easy to make jokes about this) as some sort of qualification to talk about gun violence.
It's interesting to me that she lives in a city so ridden with gangs and interracial violence ... yet she's going to tow the same drag line that the rest do about how we need to ban "assault" weapons, how we need limits on magazines, etc. I mean, if you can't fix the root of the problem, go after the fringes, right? Make life miserable for the rest of us so she can feel like she "did something". For the kids.
It'll be amusing to see what Kaaren and her 10 full-time staff members manage to not accomplish in North Carolina—a state steeped in traditions of gun ownership. I suspect this group will wither like its predecessor (NCGV) did, when they realize that Durham and Chapel Hill do not speak for the other 98 counties.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation