Amen, sir. Doomsaying is demoralizing, and it needs to stop.
Father. Husband. Cat guy. Hoosier by birth, Californian by choice, and Chicagoan by deep affinity. (Bear down!) Lover of nature, science, and philosophy. Marvel and DnD nerd since 1982. And a damn good cook.
71 followers 35 following 228 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Amen, sir. Doomsaying is demoralizing, and it needs to stop.
as long as they get their red meat, and most centrists aren’t so engaged that they notice. So it works. Dems keep saying things that sound academic enough to make even our own base cringe, and that alienate the middle. It’s dumb. A problem we can’t afford. 2/2
This isn’t about Republicans’ rhetoric - of which, however, Nichols has long been critical. (And he’s critical of more than just their rhetoric.) But Republicans’ rhetoric all game is two-faced: they say one thing to their base and another to the centrists. Their basis doesn’t care, 1/2
And all too many self-described “moderate” or “centrist” or “independent” voters won’t vote for *either* of them. *That* is Nichols’ point. And it’s not something that the opposition can afford. At all.
You’re right that this doesn’t happen. But Nichols is right that some voters who don’t support Republicans *don’t support Democrats, either,* because these voters are turned off by Dems’ rhetoric. It’s not a huge number of voters, sure. But in a tight swing-state race, it has an impact.
In fairness, is it a black swan when it happens *twice?*… The argument is not that Trump’s supporters vote for him because of Democrats’ rhetoric: it’s that even some people who dislike Trump *don’t* vote for *Democrats* because of Democrats’ rhetoric. Alienating reachable voters is… not wise.
Sarah Longwell is the “L” in “LGBTQ+.” Maybe you should rethink how you’re approaching things.
They’re called “safe third country” agreements. But apparently I was wrong on two fronts: 1) We have one with Canada, and have had it for over 20 years. 2) Trump indeed wanted them throughout Central America. But Biden stopped those. www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/safe-th....
Yes — although until Trump’s first term, I don’t believe there were any diplomatic agreements legally *requiring* a person to seek asylum in the first or nearest safe country they enter. Even now there are reasons (eg family connections) that supersede these agreements.
“If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” Unlike Tom, I’m not generally a fan of Reagan. But he was absolutely right about this.
Then *that* is what you claim as your reason for seeking asylum: fear of violence, and *not* economic hardship. There is nothing disingenuous about this. It’s simply the law. Fear of persecution is legal grounds for asylum. Poverty is not.
Sure, but economic hardship is *not* a legally viable reason for an asylum claim. The legal requirement for asylum - not for immigration, but for asylum - is fear of persecution (on the basis of race, religion, etc).
Overcoming poverty is a perfectly good reason to want to immigrate. And some people immigrate legally for just that reason. But that’s not the same thing as claiming asylum. 2/2
Yes and no. An asylum claim requires fear of persecution. If you claim asylum based on fear of persecution, then you should have the opportunity to prove it in court. But if you claim asylum based on economic hardship, you’ll be immediately detained, as that’s not a legal asylum reason. 1/2
Seeking asylum requires fear of persecution on the basis of group memberships (race, nationality, etc) or religious or political views. Poverty is not a legal It’s perfectly reasonable as a reason to immigrate, of course. But under the law, it does not qualify one for asylum.
The fact that borders are human constructs that exist through behavioral conventions does not make them “imaginary.”
As ever, thanks for providing the service of making posters who go full emotion-over-reason reveal themselves. Invaluable.
For some on the left, a conservative who opposes Trump is still to be opposed at all costs because they are still, after all, conservative. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces. A form of derangement, truly.
Bingo.
EXACTLY!!! As Carl Sagan once said, no one worships the law of gravity. I can accept this description of our finite, fleeting place within the world. I even think it’s important to recognize this, as a matter of morality and ethics. But it implies nothing for or against God’s existence.
But of course, this view of morality is not implied by atheism, and rejecting it does not imply theism.
Mutation is “random,” in the senses of “unpredictable given the limits of our knowledge” and “not necessarily directed toward the good of the organism in which they occur.” But natural selection is the opposite of a random process, and it does *a lot.*
Natural selection is not “random,” and this is one of the biggest misconceptions of how evolution works. Genetic mutations are “random,” but even that is only in the limited sense of “unpredictable,” and absolutely not “uncaused.” But natural selection is a non-random process.
Except that clouds are observable, and mathematical truths are demonstrable through logical proofs. I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist, much less belittling anyone for believing (though I also disagree). But I don’t think God’s existence is a belief held “the same way” as these other beliefs.
But can’t one accept that, and even think it a deeply important moral and cosmological truth, *without* believing in God? It’s not that I find faith mystifying. It’s that I find this bit of reasoning strange!
But how? In the passages you’ve cited, it seems that belief in God ends up a reminder that, to paraphrase, we’re all going to die, and no quantity of material possessions or commitment to self-aggrandizement will change that. Viz, It’s not about you; get over yourself. Okay. So stipulated. 1/x
This is plain stupid. Sweat works by evaporative cooling. Any form of breeze improves just that - including the breeze from a fan. Does it make the air cooler? No. Does it help you cool down? Absolutely. Once again, I find my decision to quit the WaPo vindicated.
Students should transfer, and prospectives shouldn’t even consider it. Faculty should quit, and donors should pull the plug. Fall of a great institution.
So quit, guys. You’re miserable? Great — QUIT. And blow the whistle while you’re at it.
The attrition at DOJ has been massive. They can’t find enough people willing to risk their careers for this nonsense. So the attorneys they have left are not on average all that competent, and they’re also overworked. —Which I don’t mind in the slightest.
It used to *be* full of them. But then they read that Steve Jobs used drugs, and voila, here we are with a bunch of steroid- and ketamine-fueled brain-wrecks to gawk at.
Hear me out: Eric Adams might be crooked
“Leaders of Countries.” God, he’s such an imbecile.
Nah. Just callin’ it like I see it, son. But the notion that rejecting violence is acceptance or collaboration sure isn’t smart, I grant you.
I love that her profile says “love, not hate.” Guess that only goes so far.
This is EXACTLY the right answer. The people here who’ve given up on courts and voting are part of the problem.
There are ways to resist that don’t involve assassinating ICE agents. When they don’t show ID or warrants, call the police on them. Videotape their abuses and publicize them. March in the streets to protest the policies that enable them. Fund the legal battles. And above all, vote.
Idiotic. There is a vast space for resistance between “do nothing” and “assassinate ICE agents,” from the incredible No Kings marches and taking video of abuses to - and I know you’ll hate these options - courts and voting.
He’s not saying that people should roll over. He’s saying there are ways to resist that don’t involve violence. And he’s right.
FWIW, Russia is a bad example, precisely because it does *not* have decentralized voting (or anything else). It’s all controlled from the Kremlin.
And yet, they won’t be able to stop us from voting.
Congratulations to Senator Murkowski, who got exactly what she voted for.
Gee, was that “rude?” I had no idea.
Because there was every reason at the time to think they’d be the adults exercising restraint. Instead, they’ve abandoned every principle they ever publicly stated. Anyway, thanks for playing this edition of Red Herrings. Now get back to criticizing what matters, instead of stupid shit.
So stop letting them get away with it by playing nice! NAME them. EXPOSE them. And if that violates rules of so-called “comity?” I DON’T CARE. They are NOT your friends. They do NOT care about the well-being of their country or its people. You owe them NOTHING.
Hell, I’m a 51yo man, and this is literally the first time I’ve even heard of “Depop.” 🤷♂️
Counter-counterpoint: maybe then real law enforcement and emergency call centers will put pressure on the ICE-tapo to start looking and acting like law enforcement officers instead of cartel hit squads.
That isn’t “interpreting” what the statute says: it’s IGNORING what the statute says. And so I will repeat: judicial review does not mean that words have no meaning. DHS and Republicans do not have license to just make shit up.
All true, and yet here you are claiming that a law which explicitly says that members of Congress canNOT be required to give advance notice of inspection could be reasonably interpreted to mean that members of Congress CAN be required to give such notice. That is patently ridiculous. 1/2
Oh, are laws only “rarely” black and white? I’m not so sure about that. But even granting the point, *this is one of those rare cases.* The law explicitly denies exactly what DHS is trying to impose here. Your argument boils down to “words mean nothing, because judicial review exists.” Laughable.
Where does the word “maybe” appear in the law in question? You seem to think that because judicial review is a thing, words mean anything you want them to mean. But hey, your wife is a lawyer. Guess I’ll just defer to your expertise.
Get serious. The fact that judicial review exists doesn’t mean that the law says something it doesn’t say. If it meant what you seem to think it is, there would be no point to having laws at all.
This is simply false. Members of Congress do not have to give advance notice *at all* to inspect federal facilities. The entire point is so that administrations can’t cover up wrongdoing. How many people will tell you that you’re wrong about this before you acknowledge that you’re mistaken?…
I have a close friend who’s Israeli, and he said exactly this. It’s all so incredibly stupid. He thinks it’s a desperate attempt to distract from the ghastliness of what Netanyahu has done to Gaza. Not enough forethought, because long-term benefit to Israel wasn’t the point.
Good. Let them get what they voted for.
It turns out, some things ARE rocket science.
Fuck off, you anti-American piece of shit.
Exhibit for why Stephen A. Smith is an amoral idiot.
Good grief, Kinzinger. This isn’t about tactical ability. It’s about strategic and diplomatic stupidity.
That smirking fat fuck is as MAGA as it gets. Imbeciles with no understanding of, or interest in, the law, just getting off on flexing a teeny bit of authority.
It’s like watching Trump at the parade. The ranks file by, and he realizes, as John Oliver predicted years ago, “That’s not it either.”
The way Frankenstein stories usually work, the creation rising up to destroy its creator is presented as a bad thing - but only because the creator means well. …But maybe when the creator is a bigoted, ignorant, arrogant psychopath, the creation’s rebellion isn’t so tragic after all.
“I am a troll. Please block me without a second of engagement.”
Which is why Fox News won’t *show* this.
Because he hasn’t rock bottom. Which, in these circumstances, is genuinely terrifying.
Even if the regime *does* fall, the *next* one - which Israel will certainly have no part in choosing - will absolutely sprint toward a bomb.
Actually, preemptive self-defense is. But preventive self-defense is *usually* not. The difference between the two is crucial, and it’s clearly why Israel is *calling* this a “preemptive” strike, even though the *facts* just as clearly indicate that it’s a preventive one.
Ten Democrats voted to censure green, out of over 200 in the chamber, and those ten votes were not decisive, anyway. Sure, those ten are obviously quisling fucks. But don’t play this stupid “both sides” game when the quisling fucks are outnumbered by 20 to 1, and the other party is full-on fascist.
Exactly! I mean what is the point of bringing that up right now?!? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
1. More witnesses weren’t going to change a thing, and everybody knew it. 2. How is relitigating that a remotely helpful response to today’s events?!?
Which is ironic
And yet those were not modern nation-states, which began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Concepts of national sovereignty and the right of a people to self-governance start here.
Oh, those pesky facts again
He doesn’t even 70 million zealots. Just 25 million zealots, 44.75 million negative partisans, and a quarter million completely uninformed and gullible voters spread across a handful of states.
And I will thank you yet again for helping us find accounts on which to use this function.
So he wants ICE thugs arrested. Me and Trump, on the same page - who’d’a thunk it?!?
Annoying the government is great. Annoying the people you’re trying to win over is not. Because the point of protest is not to win over the government. It’s to win over the public. As long as we’re talking about “how protests work.”
And that lack of reciprocity is *exactly* why Harris lost. The bros cut off their nose to spite their face. So here we are.
In other words, 3/8 of veterans voted Democratic. So any crazy orders have problems.
My decision to quit the WaPo is vindicated yet again.
Full retreat.
Ketamine is a helluva drug.
I’m trying to put my daughter to sleep - you simply cannot make me laugh like that
I mean it’s not just from outside, believe me.
Since when does the federal government get to play favorites among the states?!? Fuck these anti-American assholes.
Right. They don’t want democracy. They want a king. Anti-American pseudo-patriots.
We’ve come full circle as a society. When Clinton got impeached, many parents had to explain to their children what “oral sex” is. Today, many then-children of that very generation have to explain what a “throuple” is to their parents. The passage of time is a wonder.
Oh, come on. Based on his time in the Senate, they quite reasonably thought he would be the one adult in the room. But he’s basically abandoned every position he’d ever taken on anything. No one saw that coming. So sure, they were wrong. But it’s no mystery why.
Totally. For another example, the USCIT ruling yesterday eliminated Trump’s balance of trade tariffs because the emergency powers law Trump has been invoking *explicitly denies that trade deficits are a basis for invoking such powers.* But I guess no one read that part. Incompetent pseudo-lawyers.
He didn’t just believe in slavery: he believed that some people are *by their very nature* slaves. There’s plenty of good to be found in Aristotle’s thought. But a theory of rights just ain’t to be had there.
Since 1996, I’ve lived in Chicago, Atlanta, and San Francisco. I’ve also visited big cities from New York to LA. And I’ve ridden trains and buses in all of them. The only time I’ve ever been mugged was by a meth head while I walked down the sidewalk in a small town in super-MAGA northern Indiana.
Quick, somebody tell Jake Tapper
That is some serious historical nonsense there. He skips the Enlightenment entirely and pretends that pre-modern thinkers held views they simply did not hold. What utter tripe.
Can you imagine the Republican caterwauling if another country declared that their citizens were not subject to American law, even when on American soil?
They voted for Trump and still support has policies… so long as those policies only affect *other* people. When *they* are affected, it’s wrong. A perfect illustration of modern “conservatism” and its most basic problem.
“Maybe a little throat-clearing.”
Of course, they’re not actually hiding it. They’re displaying it for all to see, then screaming at anyone who says they saw it.
Well, I mean, numbers don’t lie
When the lights are out is when she’s strongest. I’ve heard.
Why can’t NYC have normal human beings as mayor?