comment: >
  
  Yup. Let red states put money where their mouth is.  If they’re so concerned that blue states are too heavily influential then they can feel free to lose federal funding subsidized by blue states.
context: Does anyone else get slave catcher vibes about these anti-abortion states which want to punish people for doing things in other states?
  Like I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, it just seems pretty comparable. >
  
  A direct line can be drawn from the conservative south during slavery and the conservative south today. They're entire basis for existing is to protect white supremacy and the patriarchy. >
  
  People get too caught up in political labels like “Democrat” and “Republican” to really understand the full extent of the politician they’re voting for. It’s like these people don’t care about history— a democrat in the 1920s is the same as a democrat in the 2020s for them. >
  
  Precisely and a Republican from 1860 is the same as a Republican today. They are willfully ignorant morons. >
  
  Not exactly. Didn’t the parties slowly switch platforms somewhere around then, and for the next 80 years? >
  
  That's his point >
  
  Wouldn’t it then be true that a Republican in 1860 is the same as a Democrat today? >
  
  I think what the original comment is saying is that modern Republicans pretend the switch never happened. Modern republicans are the same as Lincoln era republicans to them, despite the clear and obvious party switch >
  
  
  some Americans won't accept
  
  That day has already come and gone. It's now a question of how many. >
  
  and a question of what we do about it >
  
  In times like this, it’s important to ask what John Brown would do in this situation. >
  
  “Perhaps the worst part is that the Roberts court can’t even bother with ideological consistency in pursuit of partisan goals.”  
  Following the unconscionable Dred Scott decision by Chief Justice Taney In 1857, Abraham Lincoln was quoted at his Inauguration as saying, “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
  Today’s SCOTUS is beyond partisan and political, without consistency in pursuit of their partisan goals, thereby nullifying that institution. >
  
  This has long been an observation by political scientists but it's coming to even more of a head now because Congress has largely abdicated their responsibility to legislate. No one wants to be on record voting for anything that even has the smallest possibility of being used against them in elections. It's much safer to write highly partisan bills that they know won't pass but virtue signal to their base and that they can use to call the other party obstructionists. So now now we rely on the courts to make law where Congress wont. >
  
  Dammit this is so frustratingly accurate. Why pass any bill when you can tell your base you were super duper going to pass it but the other party blocked us. >
  
  Blue states need to stop giving red states their tax dollars. Shit would get sorted with a quickness once most red states go belly up.