“States rights” is never specific because it’s talking about state’s right to own people, or segregate, or other racist things. If it’s for something good then you just say what you’re actually wanting to do.
Yes, because you’ve always seen it used by the Republican Party.
Over the course of decades, the “pet causes” associated to each political party has shifted a lot. We think of them as a constant but not so much.
I fully agree with the “States’ rights to do what??” memes, based on how Republicans dogwhistle it. Realistically though, if there can be some basic faith that the person asking for a particular “states right” is not a horrible person, they can have some decent points to it.
I totally agree with giving states more control. The thing is, if I’m ever discussing it, I’m not going to be as vague as “states rights”. That’s my point. It’s not that the argument is bad, but that the only reason to be vague is to conceal the true intent.
“States rights” is never specific because it’s talking about state’s right to own people, or segregate, or other racist things. If it’s for something good then you just say what you’re actually wanting to do.
Yes, because you’ve always seen it used by the Republican Party.
Over the course of decades, the “pet causes” associated to each political party has shifted a lot. We think of them as a constant but not so much.
I fully agree with the “States’ rights to do what??” memes, based on how Republicans dogwhistle it. Realistically though, if there can be some basic faith that the person asking for a particular “states right” is not a horrible person, they can have some decent points to it.
I totally agree with giving states more control. The thing is, if I’m ever discussing it, I’m not going to be as vague as “states rights”. That’s my point. It’s not that the argument is bad, but that the only reason to be vague is to conceal the true intent.