He looks and talks like he just stepped out of the 1950s. Shame he couldn't have stayed there.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
111 points (97.4% liked)
US Authoritarianism
811 readers
336 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
That's not a good answer to any question other than "What would the KKK say about the state of marriage in the country?"
Oh, I misspoke. I didn’t understand the question. You didn’t understand my answer. I thought you said something else.
Shut up, dickbag. Own your political beliefs.
So . . . he was joking?
Obviously no. Let the states decide has always been a bullshit cover for belief that whatever it is shouldn’t be legal. If it’s let the states decide then it’s up for grabs every election season. Why should we have to guess if it’s gonna be legal this year or next?
Don't you feel so much more Freedom™ now that your state government can decide whether or not a pregnant person get healthcare, instead of just leaving it up to her and her doctor? We need to stop the tyranny of the Federal government just deciding carte blanche that any two consenting adults can get married and let communities decide whether to allow miscegenation or if your local community prefers to put a bounty on the heads of mulattos and quadroons. /s
If he was asked in the context of "should states or federal decide on stuff" and he didn't want to actually criticize the passed decision, while he was being evaluated for supreme court, okay, maybe an edge case I myself have no experience with. Let the man walk free
You're giving him a LOT of "benefit of the doubt". On a larger scale, the whole argument of federal vs state rights is really just a more nuanced way for them to make a "not in my backyard" argument. They want the states to be able to choose not because it would give more freedom or anything like that, it's because they want THEIR state to be able to make something illegal, which is the opposite of more freedom
Yeah, you're probably right
You're good my dude <3