Is anybody here scared of any of them beating Hillary Clinton (or, really, any Democrat)?

come to the conclusion that the fetus was born alive? If it was "born" stillborn, um, that's dead, right? How in the world does somebody get convicted for a miscarriage? They couldn't find any evidence that she took what they said she took to cause the miscarriage either. This whole case seems to be a miscarriage........of justice.

why did he agree to sign it in the first place? Why was it even necessary in the first place?

largely because of economic considerations. I sort of thought that Pence might read the writing on the wall too given how business organizations, Gen Con, etc. had started speaking out against the bill but apparently he felt too much in thrall to the fundies in our state. The fact that he signed it in a private ceremony surrounded by anti-LGBT organizations should clearly illustrate why he signed it and what constituency he was trying to appease (and what he hopes/thinks the law will accomplish).

Next question

that Jeb Bush isn't quite getting the "hero's welcome" in the lead up to next year's general election. Of course, there's still time but it seems like the Republican Party seems to be bored with "moderate" Bushies and are gravitating to the more extreme candidates whom stand even less of a chance of winning in a general election.

As outrage has grown over the passage and and, now, signing of Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA), its proponents now seem to be promulgating the dubious argument that there is little or no difference between Indiana's RFRA and the federal law that President Clinton signed into law during his Presidency and, therefore, there should be nothing for us to be all upset about, right? My knowledge of the national RFRA is, admittedly, a little rusty, however, for some reason, this comparison seems to ring false. My understanding is that the national federal law essentially required the government to apply stricter scrutiny towards passing laws and rules against various forms of individual religious expression. If memory serves, the national RFRA stemmed from a negative SCOTUS ruling against the use of Peyote during certain Native American religious ceremonies. Indiana's law was passed, curiously enough, on the heels of an affirmative ruling for marriage equality here in Indiana and has been largely framed as giving businesses greater leverage in refusing services towards certain individuals based on the religious beliefs of its owners, as well as superseding anti-discrimination measures already on the books. The ultimate effect of this law appears mainly aimed at allowing more protection for businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals, something that I'm not familiar with the national RFRA doing. Has anybody else seen these arguments popping up? Is my reading of the differences between the two laws correct?

the logic of a President nominating somebody to head up the Justice Department who believes that the President acted unconstitutionally?



Yet, this somehow makes sense to Republicans? I questioned the constitutionality of a lot of stuff George W. Bush did and I vehemently objected to many of his cabinet and judicial nominees (some of which were rightly and thankfully rejected), however I never expected him to nominate anybody who spoke out against or loudly objected to his policies (which they would have to enforce in their position). Why would ANY POTUS do such a thing? Once again, Republicans are simply making outrageous demands of President Obama that they would NEVER make of their own POTUS.

while right-wing totalitarianism has ACTUALLY creeped up on us in right-wing/Republican-dominated states.

though he may as well have. The next Republican "Obamacare-Replacement Unit" will come and go just like every scheduled apocalypse. If they haven't come up with an alternative to ACA in five years, how are they going to come up with something substantive in another 3 months? And, just for the sake of argument, their teabagger minions (and probably a majority of their "crazy caucus" in the House) probably wouldn't support anything that Ryan, et. al come up with because they don't care about people having health care unless they're independently wealthy (or on old-age single payer government healthcare), so it's safe to say that there will be no alternative forthcoming.