Water pollution. How about a volcano?
Water pollution. How about a volcano?
Do you think it would've been better to elect McCain instead? Could he have been pushed? Also, is it at all possible Obama lied to get elected & actually supported SSM all along? I support pushing trans rights. But saying you'll never vote for them not only doesn't do that, it's counterproductive.
So Newsom hasn't actually done anything bad then, & this is all just speculation? In 2008, Obama said he opposed SSM. If ppl had refused to vote for him on that basis, instead of Obama, Biden, Kagan, Sotomayor, repeal of DADT, etc, we'd have gotten McCain, Palin, & who knows what bad judges & laws.
Glad you brought up Obama who said he didn't support SSM in 2008. If ppl had voted in 2008 based on that the way they're saying to vote in 2028 based Newsom's podcast, instead of Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor, repealing DADT, etc, we'd have gotten McCain, Palin, & who knows what terrible judges & laws.
It wasn't dissimilar to a plan in the 70s Dems balked at in hopes of passing UHC post-elxn, but elxn didn't go well, & it took until 2010 to try again. Regardless, it also wasn't even Obama's starting position. Lieberman wouldn't vote for a public option, so it was either remove it, or get nothing.
When did he hand over the Supreme Court? Also, "Romneycare" was passed by Dem supermajorities, & Romney was merely resigned to it. He even vetoed a bunch of provisions, & Dems overrode him on nearly all of them.
It's sort of the paradox of preparedness. The pandemic was bad, but it could've been much worse, & the fact we avoided the worst outcomes means preparations & mitigations are often not rewarded.
Murc's law: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?t...
I think this is at least partially a function of having our elections in nice, multiple-of-four years, but then having the winner take office the following year. Biden won in 2020, so he was in office in 2020, is false, but easy to understand, plus there's a deliberate effort to push it.
Whose human rights has Newsom sacrificed?
You clearly didn't watch the video, bc it's very clearly defined in the video I posted.
Even if all those come to pass (the only one that's guaranteed to happen is the passage of time), he's still better than Vance, & there's no reason to believe he'd be bad on trans or LGBT rights based on his actual performance in office. He has an actual record to judge him on.
Do you know that there's more than 3 years until the next presidential election, that Newsom hasn't even said he's interested in running, that he hasn't declared that he's running, and that he hasn't won the Democratic primaries & nomination yet?
What rights has Newsom stripped from you?
I assume you're agreeing w me here, & I'm a long-time follower of his going back years over on Twitter.
This is a backwards conception of how elections work.
The "they need to win us over/earn our votes" idea is one of the stupidest, most toxic, concepts in politics. Your vote is not a transaction btw you & the candidate. Your vote is your input, your voice, in a collective decision-making process to elect someone to represent & serve you, collectively.
This video does a pretty good job of explaining the logic of that problem bsky.app/profile/dunh...
This is such a great comic, & in only two panels. Perfectly captures the issue.
bsky.app/profile/arie...
bsky.app/profile/arie...
I’m so tired. I’m so very very tired I put in so much work and yet you still say this shit
Like the spy movie/show trope/joke about the Cold War, & saying nothing is confirmed until the Soviets deny it.
Convenient that Russia both stoked the migration, & the backlash to it, isn't it?
This is a misdiagnosis. Fox News was created & staffed w assholes long before 9/11. The humiliation of defeat may be an aggravating factor, but it can't possibly be the cause, bc the problem predates it. The aftermath of 9/11 was hugely reactionary, & was before we even had boots on the ground.
So blame Republicans for confirming RFK, & for leaving him in his position after all this nonsense he's already done (esp Sen Bill Cassidy, MD), & blame voters for electing Trump & the GOP in the first place.
The minority party can't hold hearings, can't subpoena ppl & docs, can't impeach, can't convict, can't remove. Dems, as the minority party in both houses, literally do not have the power to do what needs to be done. It's not that they somehow refuse to do it, it's that it's impossible for them.
Democrats ARE doing the things w/in their power. The problem isn't that Dems aren't using the power they have, it's that the power they have, the power that voters gave them, is insufficient. Democrats do not have any power to do anything to RFK beyond simply asking him to quit.
@arslegendi.bsky.social Is out here blaming Democrats for not coming up w a Rube Goldberg machine to solve the impossible problem deliberately created by Republicans, instead of just blaming Republicans for deliberately creating it.
Even if that were possible (it isn't), it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Do you think a town's police budget is sufficient to run a hospital? Even if you completely eliminated the entire police department? City A cannot take City B's police budget to fund the hospital. County C cannot take Cities A & B's police budgets to fund the hospital, either.
Is that money from the same source, controlled by the same entity? Hospitals are frequently operated & funded at the county level, since they usually serve more than just a single municipality. But the county doesn't own the municipal budgets that fund the police.
There's no magic button Democrats simply refuse to push that will let them win in the legislature. 2024 Voters refused to give Democrats enough power to actually do things when they voted in November. This is downstream of that.
It'll die in the rules committee, just like happened when Al Green forced the issue on impeaching Trump. It is not possible for the minority party to force the majority party to do anything they don't want to do. The rules don't allow for it, & even if they did, the majority controls the rules.
Who controls the federal budget right now?
The first part, making him seem like a good Samaritan, is probably to counter something bad that's about to come out, like he was drunk, or driving like an asshole, etc. He wants everyone to be like, but he just saved that poor battered woman, maybe we can just let this slide.
No, Republicans *doing it* made it a partisan issue. Correctly attributing blame doesn't change it. Republicans are the ones cutting funding so some have to go w/o. They're the ones denying ppl care. Not sure why you're bending over backwards to avoid blaming GOP unless your goal is to help them.
Even if I'm wrong & it does somehow get a majority in the House, there's zero chance 20+ GOP Senators vote to convict & remove RFK (67+ to convict, less 47 Dems & Indies, leaves 20+, assuming all Dems on board). Again, still maybe worth doing, just know that it'll be performative & won't oust RFK.
Bernie is neither in the House, nor a Dem. Also, Johnson can stop the impeachment in the rules cmte, as he already did once. Even if Dems can force it to a full vote, it's unlikely enough GOP Reps defect to impeach him. Might still be worth doing, but it probably won't even get to the Senate.
The minority can slow things down, force the majority to prioritize, complicate deals (eg, if Bob says he'll vote for A only if Joe votes for B, & vice versa, but the party is forced to choose between passing only A OR B, Bob & Joe's deal doesn't work anymore), & let them pass fewer bills, but > 0.
It's not that they can't obstruct *anything*. They can, & do obstruct things. It's just that they can't obstruct *everything*. They cannot, do not, & have not. That's why Dems still passed those 79 bills. So Dems can't obstruct everything, either.
Not just a bailout, but buying their support, & their votes.
🧵 Authoritarianism, Democratization, and Coalition Politics. The consensus around here is, more or less, that the United States is currently a consolidating authoritarian regime controlled by a mix of reactionary populists and fascists.
That's why they're wearing masks & refuse to identify themselves, so they can avoid sanctions & legal consequences.
I make tacos probably about twice a month.
Now, I think the filibuster is an undemocratic (small-d) rule, & should be abolished, but I'm content to see it left in place for the time being, while it benefits Dems. But they should abolish it first thing in January, 2029, assuming a Dem trifecta.
But you'll note, even when the GOP only has bare majorities in the Senate, as they did Trump's first two years in 2017-19, & as they do now, they left the filibuster in place. That may change, but, for now, they're limited to fiscal policy & confirmations, & they're even failing on confirmations.
Then, instead of trying to get 60+ votes to repeal laws they don't like, GOP lets the judiciary, who they confirmed by simple majority, strike down or otherwise hobble the laws they don't like, also by simple majority. They can win at trial 1-0, on appeal 2-1, or at SCOTUS 5-4. No supermajorities.
The GOP generally doesn't want to affirmatively do things. Tax cuts require legislation, so they do those, but it can be done via reconciliation, so it only needs a simple maj. They passed a large recon spending bill, also by simple maj. Judicial confirmations are done by simple majority, too.
But the GOP's agenda of almost exclusively tax cuts & judges only needs 51+ Senate votes to pass. Blocking those takes 51+ votes. Whose affirmative task is harder: 60+ votes to pass, or 51+ votes to pass? Whose negative task is harder: getting 41+ votes to block, or getting 51+ votes to block?
It's asymmetrical. What you're objecting to is the difference between what can be done by simple majority, & what needs a supermajority. Dems want to legislate on civil, LGBT, voting, women's, labor, children's, environmental, abortion rights, education, etc, & it all takes 60+ Senate votes.
Here are lists of a combined 79 major bills Republicans failed to block in Obama's & Biden's first two years each. bsky.app/profile/adri...
Perhaps even it's deliberate & coordinated. By Newsom being performatively loud & obnoxious, it distracts Trump & the GOP from what Dems in Congress are doing, & gets Fox to cover Newsom instead of Congress. Slowing confirmations down to a glacial pace is something Schumer can do that Newsom can't.
Newsom's making noise, & we all enjoy seeing Trump mocked, but has that mockery actually accomplished anything? You claim it's working, so what has it worked? To the extent Newsom has accomplished things, it's bc he's fighting in court, not bc he's blowing raspberries.
And there's a difference between Newsom being the governor, the chief executive, of a co-sovereign state, & being a legislator. Newsom literally commands an army. Schumer & Jeffries do not. They have different powers, so they are able to do different things.
If you're not stupid, & claim you can count, then why are you demanding a minority party use powers that only belong the majority? What they CAN do, as the minority, is slow things down, which they're doing. bsky.app/profile/jlra...
Gun bill was bc not enough Dems were willing to pass it, prob bc they were afraid of NRA & losing future elections, possibly political violence, not bc GOP blocked it. Same result, different cause. If Dems had been willing to pass it, GOP couldn't've stopped it, like everything else on those lists.
Here are lists of literally DOZENS of major bills the GOP didn't block in the 111th & 117th Congresses (Obama's & Biden's first two years, respectively). Why not? Bc that power does not actually exist! As always, it boils down to, "Why won't Dems do more w the power voters refused to give them?"
That's not an answer. To reiterate: What would you like the minority party to do beyond that that is actually within their power to do? "Stop with this defeatist ass attitude" Done. Now what? What *specific things* can Dems in Congress actually do, as the minority party, that would satisfy you?
I didn't say that, either, bub. I'm saying one *hospital* is more valuable than another. We could keep all the hospitals open, but Trump & the GOP refuse. They are forcing cuts. So the sensible thing is to cut the less valuable hospitals, the ones whose loss will harm fewer equally-valuable people.
Ok, like what? What can the minority party do to "play dirty" that they aren't currently doing? Be specific.
Because this is the situation Trump & Republicans in Congress have forced upon us! They will not fund all the hospitals, so, necessarily, some hospitals must close. So the question becomes, which? How do we choose? Why are you pretending like this doesn't implicate having to decide?
No, so it's a good thing I didn't actually do that, isn't it? I'm glad we both agree Republicans did a bad thing. GOP turned healthcare into a partisan issue by w/holding hospital funds that used to be appropriated on a bipartisan basis. Recognizing a problem isn't the same as creating it.
You stopped reading too early: "there is no absolute prerequisite that the defendant also be shown to have supplied the victim with the actual instrumentality of suicide." law.justia.com/cases/califo...
Intent can be inferred, & the specific, overt, act, was, in fact, accomplished. To analogize to aiding & abetting, suppose the crime were murder, & the accessory a person, not a chatbot, who told the murderer how to hide a weapon in advance to avoid detection, & how to improve the weapon. Exposed?
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/u...
I think they're sort of attempting to, just not that well. Calling everything a "distraction" is rejecting Trump/GOP's frame. Trying to make everything a "kitchen table issue" is rejecting their frame. It's not taking the bait, but it's also probably not the optimal way to avoid it, either.
What would you like the minority party to do beyond that that is actually within their power to do?
bsky.app/profile/jlra...
Then why are the rural hospitals that will need to close currently open? If funding is being cut off, who turned it on?
Individually, sure. But that's not the issue here, we're talking in aggregate. If you could choose either to save 100 children, or 100,000 children, but not all of them, you'd consider those equally good outcomes? No need to weigh them, may as well just flip a coin?
Hail Hydra.
Strapped to the roof of the car, eaten, or dumped in Central Park? 🤔
I love that for her!
Haven't you ever listened to Billy Joel? Can't you tell that your tie's too wide?
Come up with one more comparative & then get Daft Punk to record it to use in attack ads against the GOP, as the background audio behind visuals of schools closing, hospitals closing, taking food out of the cart at the checkout bc they can't afford it all, etc.
I think some of them may simply think the ppl have spoken, & so they're just resigned to living like this. Others may think we're past the point of no return, that 2024 was our last, best, chance to stop this, & that we failed. Ultimately, they're just different ways to get to the same result.
The political equivalent of, "stop hitting yourself!"
I assume it would go similarly to Connor Roy's eulogy in Succession: youtu.be/SS4orsrhhwE
Who needs one these days? Anything worth knowing will either be sent to you in a group chat message, or left in a bathroom for you to read at your leisure.
Robots don't have 1A rights. If the people behind the robot want to claim it speaks for them, that it is saying what they want it to say, then they can have liability for what it says, too. They're trying to have it both ways.
If this were a real person who had done this, whether face-to-face, or online, they would have liability. And if a person would have liability, then having a robot say the things for the person should not absolve them of liability.
Not true. Eg, for asylum, only requirements are physical presence in the US & presentation to officials. Not only does that not require entry at a POE, but it may even require entry elsewhere, since the POE, itself, does not count as physical presence (AFAIK). And asylum is a legal status.
Ok, and what about these people? bsky.app/profile/ques...
No allowances? Just base pay?
It's also Marine for picking up trash.
Obv, that's slightly exaggerated, since crime at least exists, but the point still stands, bc the crime levels ppl are freaking out about don't actually exist.
If someone is imagining a tooth fairy problem, they're already unmoored from reality, so no policy one could possibly come up with will satisfy them. If pointing out the absence of tooth fairies could work on those people, they wouldn't be freaking out in the first place, would they?
You're acting as though the issue is a lack of policy to address some problem, when the actual issue is that the problem doesn't exist. What possible policy could Dems come up with to solve an imagined problem that would convince those who are imagining it that it's been adequately addressed?
This is like saying, "like it or not, the tooth fairy is a very salient issue for most Americans," and then demanding that Democrats come up with a policy to address stopping the tooth fairy. Or the jabberwocky, or Krampus, unicorns, leprechauns, flying monkeys, etc.
Are we paying for these shares? My understanding was that we basically extorted them, and our basis will be $0, which means liquidating at any price would be profitable.
You will not get those policies out of a fascist government. Whether a tool is good or bad depends on in whose hands it is. A scalpel can be used in life-saving surgery, or to commit murder. You can't just say scalpels are good & it doesn't matter in whose hands it's in.
Not neuter. Conquer. Give us a 7-6 or better liberal majority & they can undo most of this shit. Ideally, declare Trump to have been ineligible & everything he did legally void. It won't, eg, bring back everyone who died after USAID was gutted, but it's probably the next best thing.
Or during the Marines Hymn, or Anchors Aweigh, or colors, etc. Likewise to be attacking people carrying American flags. Probably can't beat them in a fight, but we can decrease their desire to fight, & increase the cost of it.
And not that things are violent anywhere right now (vis-a-vis NG troops, & whatever Marines may still be deployed anywhere domestically), but not only would it be hard to overcome their training, it would also look absolutely horrible to be attacking, eg, ppl playing/singing the national anthem.
I still say protesters should start having fun w bugle calls, the national anthem, & service hymns. Troops won't enjoy standing at attention & saluting, but they will have a hard time ignoring years of training that tells them to stand at attention during those songs/calls, & to salute for some.