Maybe I misunderstood mixologist's point. I thought mixologist's point was that there's a logical inconsistency if someone wants states to regulate one issue, b

Maybe I misunderstood mixologist's point. I thought mixologist's point was that there's a logical inconsistency if someone wants states to regulate one issue, but not another issue. You seem to be fine with allowing states to regulate AI, but not abortion. So either you disagree with mixologist, or I misunderstood mixologist. If mixologist wasn't making that point, then my previous comment doesn't make sense. >GOP does hide behind states rights when it suits them. It's an interesting situation. Prior to 2024, the GOP's policy was that abortion should be banned at the federal level. Trump disagreed with that, and in 2024, Trump convinced the GOP to change policy, and defer it to the states[1]. AIUI, the previous policy was based on the idea that abortion is morally wrong due to killing a person, and thus should be banned. I think the new policy is based on the idea that abortion is a moral uncertainty: the GOP doesn't know whether the fetus is a person or not, so it's unclear whether abortion is morally wrong or not, and because it's unclear, there shouldn't be a federal decision one way or the other on it, it should be deferred to the states. You could call that "hiding behind states rights", or you could call it "deferring unclear issues to the local level instead of making sweeping laws on unclear issues". AIUI, the GOP's policy on AI is different. The GOP doesn't think AI has the same moral uncertainty as abortion does. Instead, the GOP views AI under an economic lens, not a moral lens. And under an economic lens, consistent laws across the states help economically. [1] https://apnews.com/article/republicans-abortion-party-platform-trump-rnc-5561e857c5501df9864ab8ca666d8bc5 https://apnews.com/article/republicans-abortion-party-platfo...