Thanks! I grew up southern Baptist and had no idea about any of that until very recently. Puts a very different spin on a lot of the things I grew up hearing.
Crazy to think that article is from 2014, and still somehow most people don't know this information!
Do you have any chest, arm or back pain? Do you have a pulse oximeter?
Can you go to a minor ER? If you hadn't said your heartbeat was off, I would say not necessarily a big concern at this point, but this also sounds similar to what happened to a friend of mine with an aortic dissection.
She thought it was food poisoning at first, finally went to a minor med, they refused to treat her bc her and sent her to the ER ASAP. She ended up in the hospital for several weeks.
Right, and who is in control of Congress right now? Any amendments they've brought up lately?
Amendment to Give Trump a Third Term Has 'A Lot of Support': GOP Rep
More scientists and data, but research quality in China has been very poor for quite some time, hence a lot of questions and concerns regarding methods, data collection, and number of retracted articles.
The entire idea of the "China virus" and the Trump/Republicans lab leak/attack on NIH funding to EcoHealth, and their collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology, hinged on pointing out the lack of lab safety standards in China that wouldn't have allowed the research to occur here.
On the flip side, now that Trump is in power, OSTP is focused on removing regulations to science and tech bc they argue they are slowing us down in the AI race against China.
Kinda seems like a load of BS especially considering AI data in China is very poor likely bc of the lack of regulations
Right, but it seems like they're getting nervous people might actually be allowed to vote in the midterms
You understand that this goes both ways? The more we accept constitutional amendments as the norm, the more we place our liberties and constitutional rights most people just kind of assume are always guaranteed, at risk.
Look at how Trump handles executive orders. Imagine what he would do if people just accepted constitutional amendments no big deal.
I live in Louisiana, and I'm watching this happen right now with my governor and the state constitution. The amendments were worded in a very confusing way, and even legal experts agreed that it was unclear what the repercussions of the amendments passing would be.
In a surprising outcome, the state shot down all 4 of the proposed constitutional amendments, because people are recognizing this guy is a tyrant trying to abuse his executive power.
Pretty clear that people don't want those amendments right? Cool, so problem solved let's move on. Nope, he's making us vote again on the same amendments because he's, hoping that he can word it just right, and pad it with enough things that will please his voter base, so eventually voter apathy will kick in for the opposition and allow his amendments to pass.
What?
The mistake was giving supreme court justices appointments for life, but the government should definitely not be given easier access to make amendments to the constitution.
The point about Roe v Wade is that people need to understand history, and how they have been used to further an agenda. They need to know that many of these issues, were never actually issues most Americans were divided over.
They were turned into divisive issues by wealthy shadow men controlling the narrative, and treating government issues like advertisement campaigns.
I had no idea until very recently that before the Heritage Foundation used it as an opportunistic platform, the southern Baptist leadership actually had a favorable viewpoint regarding Roe v Wade...
I grew up in the southern Baptist church, and I didn't know that because barely anybody in this country knows that, and absolutely nobody in the southern Baptist church fucking knows that.
You want to get people to wake up, and stop falling for whatever the next "issue" is (whether it's DEI, immigration, govt bureaucracy, AI regulations), you need them to understand the history and reality of who is actually creating the narrative and manipulating them.
Roe v Wade was the original example and how segregationists gained control of a large chunk of American voters just in time for Reagan to be president. Same sex marriage came later.
It's explained in the wall of text, but bottom line is you can thank the Heritage Foundation.
I feel like we're going to end up with more laws protecting robots and surveillance cameras than our own civil liberties.
Wonder where all those angry white guys with tiki torches and khaki shorts are now? The ones that thought the Jews were trying to replace them? 🤔
"This could be a game-changer for a time when many in the research community are feeling all sticks and no carrots,” said National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt at the kickoff meeting. “This is a chance to actually deliver a win for them.”
🤣 I'm sorry, do y'all think she actually believes this? Or just hoping a good plug might keep her from being replaced?
I mean apparently they're partnering with a private robotics company. The picture is an actual model of the company's robot. Whether or not they actually end up implementing this, they're allegedly currently training the robots.
Presumably, if nothing else, Amazon/Bezos is probably getting some sweet federal kick backs to attempt this and further the current administration's agenda to beat "Gyna" in the science and tech race. Except unlike Gyna, the U.S. is firing all of their scientists (which, until Jan. 2025, was one area that the U.S. had unquestionably dominated China) bc they think AI can replace them too.
So now, they're just handing all the resources to the kind of technocratic "elites" who are used to just purchasing their good ideas, rather than actually creating anything. This is also why they seem to genuinely believe something like Amazon humanoids is a sound investment, "durr, we don't need people bcuz we haz robots."
Fun fact, just learned they are indeed going to try to replace scientists with robots too. There was a meeting about it yesterday:
For all we know they made the futuristic robot exoskeleton, took some fancy pictures of it holding a package, and that's all she wrote. The end result is just some rich assholes are slightly richer at the expense of the tax payer, and we should be grateful. 'Merica! 🇺🇲
Look dude, we have gotten so far from the actual point of my "wall of text," which you couldn't be bothered to read before arguing several more walls of text.
So let me just put aside the fact that I believe it's a bad idea to set a precedent where we rely too much on the government making constitutional amendments to reflect changes in modern society (not that it is not sometimes necessary, but that constitutional amendments should not be the default for improving America, otherwise you risk bad actors attempting to modify or remove protections and benefits that already exist in the constitution).
Let's also set aside that congress, currently controlled by Trump loyalists, want a constitutional amendment that would allow Trump to use the same strategy Vladimir Putin has used to make himself president for life and destroy democracy, and that this is exactly why I feel the way I do about constitutional amendments.
In a world where those concerns don't exist, I still have to ask why not just have it codified into law instead?
The short/uncomplicated answer for why Roe v Wade was never codified by something like the Women's health protection act, is because it didn't have enough support across both the house and Senate (bc once again, the issue used by the Heritage Foundation to create a false political division that didn't actually exist, has worked as intended. Yet most people are oblivious about who created that division, and the campaign they ran, that to this day, makes people feel so reactionary about things such as abortion. This is also the reason so many on the left worry they will lose moderate supporters, while taking their left base for granted, which they are now also beginning to lose due to voter apathy as a result of these people constantly trying to appease moderates.)
Given that we couldn't even get enough support for that to be codified into law, and putting aside literally everything else, why would you think it would somehow alternatively be easier to get enough congressional support to pass a constitutional amendments for any issue being used to keep people divided?