Having to wait years to remove some elected official is absurd. No one tolerates such a system in other parts of life. If you lied on your resume or just told your boss to fuck themselves you'd be fired right then. We are their bosses and we should be able to fire them at a moments notice.
No political system is immune to such issue. So all things being equal I prefer the system that makes it easiest to remove, replace, and reverse these people. The system that allows you to rapidly replace is far more democratic and has the ability to recover fastest.
Yes. Political leaders should live in terror that they will be summarily removed from office. The idea that this will make our system non-functioning is hardly a concern given that the current paradigm is.
They actually fast tracked him twice. The first time was because there was a little snow in DC on Tuesday so none of the Dems wanted to hang around and object. Here is noted insurrectionist Senator Kennedy saying "Thank You Jesus" as he reads aloud the news.
I mean yeah. A little late but I guess that is better than never. Since we got you do you think we should fire Trump while we're at it?
Okay but I'm not gonna like it...
Spree killers depend heavily on dumping large numbers of rounds quickly. Having to reload every 10 shots would absolutely matter. Having an internal magazine they have to reload would basically stop them in their tracks.
There is an extreme over focus on the weapon platforms themselves in. "The AR" No. The rate of fire and the capacity are key. Creating a law that makes any weapon with a detachable box magazine subject to greater scrutiny while making high capacity magazines harder to get would work better.
This also leads to dipshits trying to "divine" the legislatures true thoughts half a century later and doing wonky shit. No. Precision is needed. Furthermore an understanding of weapons and their employment.
Do it bitch! Show us this moral clarity you're posturing at.
For starters people need to get in the habit of naming and shaming the shitty authors who write this garbage.
Yes. Thank you. We can't decry the harms of "civility discourse" but then shy away from calling out these dipshits in service of being civil.
Insane. I have this position I'm still working thru but I think Liberalism as taught to us thru a white-washed and soften lens has made us so adverse to conflict and idealistic that we think shit like this. Basically we are high on our own supply. Words often don't work.
Absolutely ridiculous
These guys should be home with their families.
So what you guys think? Butlerian Jihad this weekend? Maybe make a family event out of it?
Unlike most government officials, Cook's salary isn't paid out by the Treasury. The Fed is self-financing, it turns a profit and is authorized by law to use that to pay its expenses. If they just keep paying her, and continue to let her participate, it's not even clear what he could do about that.
War crime. Israel is a terrorist state.
"It's already a best seller" Sure I totally bet you guys didn't pay some org to buy thousands of copies. Shit happens all the time.
The thing is you don't need to carve out specific emergency rules either. If a situation is truly an emergency then you will not lack the political consensus necessary to amend the law to act.
The correct response.
Same energy. bsky.app/profile/g8er...
Don't follow him down that path. Rather ask him you're own stupid hypothetical! Hey Mark, if licking my taint hypothetically would result in Dems winning the midterms, would you?
The point of this question is to anchor your response and make you just a little more amenable to Trump and his polices by getting you to agree to a seemingly innocuous or insignificant action. The next step is arguing it is necessary to compliment the admin to win.
I’m waiting for @thehill.com to apologize for lying to us about their claim that @kamalaharris.com was lying because as a matter of fact, she predicted it pretty accurately.
Because what they actually want is for us to erase these people and concepts from our world and understanding. At best they just want us to embrace the use of dehumanizing slurs.
And note that words we're suppose to excise from our lexicon are things like LGBTQA+? And replace with what? Rhetorical question. The goal is erasure. To not replace it or if we do replace it with borderline slurs. "Stop saying LGBTQA+, start saying "the gays" Fuck off
Are the Democrats saying these bad words in the room with us @radiofreetom.bsky.social? The fucking Dem establishment bent over backwards to court centrist and got dog walked last time I checked. So what the actual fuck is the suggestion here? To stop using phrases they aren't using???
if this is all an act he deserves an Oscar I would vote for him
Wait...is there a mat in that concrete culver? What didn't want to risk scraping the knees of your trainees when asking them to crawl thru rough terrain?
Trump doesn't seem to see that some people are still immune to his threats. Jack White criticized Trump's Oval Office decor. The White House then called White a "washed-up, has-been loser... masquerading as a real artist." And White, undeterred, posted an absolutely blistering takedown in response.
And yet these are the dorks who chafe when they are called "fragile". You see terminology? Oh poor you!
I don't think these chat bots are even close though. I just think these people are dangerously close to being philosophical zombies.
My specific "really?" moment was noticing that deeply unserious religious apologetics was allowed in. Sorry but WLC is not a philosopher and I'm not gonna pretend otherwise for some nebulous reason of philosophical charitably.
Admittedly shit like this made me veer harder towards PolSci in my degree seeking. I still got my philosophy degree but I became more invested in PoliSci where I would take my philosophical knowledge and apply it there.
I mean he wrote a book exploring that. Go a ahead and grab it.
And far more useful. Like I'd rather thousands of hobbyist carpenters than 1 of these slop farmers
I won't necessarily disagree. Blue collar work feels satisfying if only because it is viscerally obvious what its benefits are. But job satisfaction doesn't pay for healthcare or your kids. So I can't blame people for not wanting to do it.
the illegal part. That's whats unclear. Or have you been ignoring all the documented cases of this admin doing illegal shit while arresting people who have done anything illegal? Don't bother answering I saw your parody of a bio " I wore body armor 4 times" guy. Embarrassing.
Wage theft is thus a very digestible term. So it's not as is used.
We have never done the bullshit MAGA claims but it is demonstrably that wealth has been continually and progressively concentrated away from workers. Those workers understand they labor and should receive wages for that but that they are reaping corresponding benefits for said labor.
Okay few issues: 1. The MAGA fucking won!!!! So I'm open to adopting some winning rhetorical strategies 2. The asylum seekers equals open borders isn't connected at all to reality. Not one iota. The logic of corps making record profits but wages remaining stagnant is connected to wage theft.
Yet he has $300 extra a month to throw at it? I wish I had half that a month to throw at my stupid hobby.
I can barely comprehend this mindset. I spend more time a week practicing with a medieval weapon that I never expect to use for real than this guy spends on the thing he's trying to make money off of.
Remember this when they tell you we can't repair infrastructure or build new homes, or house the unhoused.
Homeless camps are a policy failure, but "clearing homeless camps" isn't a policy solution, it's the state harassing people for the crime of embarrassing the state with its policy failure.
But even if we want to play bullshit legal semantics games: wage theft accounts for more than all other forms combined. So it's not as though retreating to that realm makes businesses look any better. Whether rhetorically or literally they are bastards that are robbing us.
Rhetorically it is. Morally it is. I'm uninterested in the legal definition or defense because our laws are unduly influenced by monied interest. The whole point of the comic is to create class consciousness. To produce the frame work to change that status quo
And it's a solvable problem but businesses would rather hire fucking Pinkertons to spy on people than accept a world in which they bargain with anything even approaching equals.
The power disparity between neighbors mowing lawns is non existent but between people and businesses it is extreme. And you and people like you love to make these stupid analogies that pretend it doesn't exist.
Let's make those changes. Instead of it being between you and a equally situated neighbor instead it's a landlord who owns thousands of acres of lawn and all the equipment to care for them AND can use their significantly greater power to influence the very fucking laws you exist under.
Nah. That's nit the argument. And it's telling that you use an analogy where the disparity is not present. Your example would need to be radically changed to actually be comparable.
And employers don't want and actively prevent any parity. Just look at how rabidly anti union our economy system is. So no. Fuck this "you agreed!" horse shit
This is just not the case. And you have to be willfully stupid to think that. There is just to great a disparity in power for one to think any meaningful contract or agreement was entered
"Agree" is doing a lot of lifting here. People aren't really agreeing. This is the fiction, the legitimizing myth of the "Free Market" People don't have any meaningful choice. Half wits always trot out this bullshit idea that getting a job is anything like a negotiation.
I believe they do think about their jobs constantly too. I just wish they thought their job was governing and not enriching themselves and keeping that job that they use to enrich themselves. Like the constant need to fundraise is a self inflicted problem.
Because that's the logic here right? They have to do these things to be effective or keep the job?
I think we should also get more liberal with what we consider our jobs too. "Look boss I've clocked 80 hours this week. I had to sleep a bunch and go to the grocery twice. It's been rough"
Then that's not really working. That like a day labor saying they worked really hard but you come to find that most of that time was spent at lunches or house parties with guys who own construction supplies.
I really want to do a political theory thesis on how we've just re-invented nobles but use different nomenclature. I see it everywhere in our culture.
Yarvin fully anticipates someone else will carry out his threats. He's apart of that group I mentioned when you talked about the satire of Starship Troopers. The elites who espouse ideals that they fully expect someone else to faithfully enact but that they have no intention of doing.
It absolutely matters that our leaders live this way. What makes you think this guy understands your hardships? I pay 3 times as much in taxes and I assure my living conditions are worst.
They don't value you knowing anything else. Because you are a cog, a serf. Your value is solely contained in your ability to labor. Nothing other things is for your betters.
There is a hidden assumption in the fact that you can't. A large part of any college education is the broad educational experience you gain. Doctors have to take more than just doctor classes. But Trade schools are designed to get you into the job market ASAP.
It certainly helps. But I doubt your pop would be against getting paid more. And being more respected. Why are trade schools separate from colleges after all? My hot take is that you should be able to go to college to be a plumber or diesel mechanic.
"Huge demand and limited supply" Do you think the supply would stay limited if they got their way? Furthermore trades have never been good payers for most. There is a reason people wanted to get other jobs. You don't see people clamoring to leave their white collar for blue.
Everyone knows what it means to be the kid that has to go into a trade
Of course there is a huge demand. What there isn't is a huge paycheck relative to the labor and respect. There is no two ways around this. Trade schools are pushed onto a particular class of person for ideological reasons. And those ideas aren't a secret.
Perhaps. There might be another culprit though. One that might be worse depending on your perspective: self preserving cowardice. These are people who are entirely capable of perceiving that this can only end in a fight and they desperately don't want to fight.
conservatives/republicans going full on fascist with occupying cities with the military is yet another reminder to NEVER TAKE CONSERVATISM SERIOUSLY. THEIR CRITICISMS AREN'T REAL. YOU CAN'T MEET THEM HALF WAY. THEY AREN'T A SERIOUS IDEOLOGY. THEY CAN ONLY BE CRUSHED, NOT DEBATED. thank you.
Chad in his UVa Sunday best is not the dude Steven Miller sent the FBI into DC for, but here we are.
Meanwhile redesigning roads in general helps with many things not just speeding. I think a nice stop gap or supplement is speed cameras
There wouldn't even be a modicum of separation and would compound the issue cellphones present. I also not sold on the ease of this vs its' cost. Cameras are not cheap to maintain and install, implied is that it's automated but I neither want or trust that. And all this is only for speeding.
Those efforts are not incredibly slow, there is simply no political will for it. All over Europe such changes have been made. A decade is not a long time from a societal scale. Furthermore the cameras in question would be owned by the government.
I also think speeding cameras may be unnecessary if other methods that have q wide array of secondary benefits are first implemented.
No it doesn't. Speeding happens in certain places the most. Not all "speeding" is equivalent. Pretending that all speeding is going 60 in a 15 school zone might be contributing to the push back this gets. And the surveillance ship hasn't sailed.
Privacy concerns are present with ubiquitous surveillance especially as we experience an ever more authoritarian government right now. I'd prefer that such cameras be strategically placed and have their capabilities limited to just speed enforcement.
You shouldn't. I think there are and I am supportive of other methods. Methods which I would argue have more benefits with fewer downsides. Redesigned roads that discourage speeding and more protected paths for pedestrians and cyclists. Added enforcement measures for traffic violations etc.
Plenty of cogent arguments against the specific point he's arguing for too. I'm not particularly comfortable adding such direct control over my car as is implied by the suggestion that cars should not go faster than posted. I think there are other, generally better overall things we have we can do
Because the dozens and dozens of tax cuts you guys have as is are working so well? At what point does the wealth trickle down?
"Just one more tax cut and the wealth will start trickling down, we promise!"
Though I will concede you do need to be alive to do ethics...right?
Also there are a lot of easy ways to exploit it as an ethical consideration right? I can't help but think of the "white genocide" people who predicate their deeply unethical positions on some nebulous survival argument.
It is in a way tautological. Who else but the people good at surviving both historically and contemporaneously are around right now?
One reason this approach may have become less popular is due to the simple fact it proves itself wrong? Consider that if promoting survival were good ethically we would already have arrived at being ethically good. Yet we routinely don't feel that way.
You could also design schools such that they don't overlap or minimally overlap with other traffic arteries. I think just better designed roads with speed caps built in would do basically all the work in solving this problem.
Or could we not just design the areas around schools to physically discourage speeding?
I think you can achieve this outcome without a pretty complex solution. Governors that prevent high speeds while putting enforcement mechanisms where needed. Do we really have so many schools we can't station a police officer at each one?
Any academic book publishers on here I could ask some questions about reasonable expectations for that process? I’m struggling with my current situation but have zero frame of reference…
Can't help specifically but I can boost for what it's worth.
I agree. We often want to be fair and try in vain to create nuanced definitions. But in this case that attempt actually muddies things. Magical thinking may not be sufficient but I think it is necessary when defining a religion.
They have slavery apologia too.
So your position is that AI's use of water is fine because we use way more water on food? Also at least Alfafa does the thing it's meant to do. Or is the really smart computer suppose to get basic questions wrong but really confident anyways?
Or, crazy idea just think for yourself with using an over priced under performing computer that destroys the environment?
WASHINGTON (AP) - US Air Force says it will deny retirement pay to transgender service members being separated from the service.
They have objective power. It may not save us but not using it will certainly not save us. Governors are extremely powerful figures. Capable of doing a lot. Same with Senators. And importantly they can act with relative impunity whereas we can't. We can easily be arrested or silenced. That is key.
It begs the question of why they exist if we have to constantly guide them. Funny how they seem perfectly capable of making moral and decisive decisions when it comes to making themselves rich, comfortable, and powerful but when it comes to resisting fascism suddenly they need our guidance.
I disagree vehemently. Your leaders are not dumb. It is obvious what needs to be done. They don't need to hear from you. And if they do they are unfit to be leaders. At a certain point needing us to constantly point them in the right direction IS AN INDICTMENT of them.
It is deeply unjust, unfair for the people with objective power to act in such a limp way as to impose necessity of action from you or us without power who have to take large risk to do comparatively less.