How? I’m not sure you can.
No-one of consequence. Also MavwreckTweet at the former bird site, and MavwreckTweet@masto.ai on Mastodon.
451 followers 235 following 1,379 posts
view profile on Bluesky
How? I’m not sure you can.
Hey may not even be the nominee. Governor Janet Mills is contemplating a run.
Won’t happen. Anything serious enough to actually cause changes will be hammered by the current Supreme Court. And it will just give the pro-gun purists who want to eliminate the ATF enough ammo to convince even moderate Republicans.
"Pat, why do you carry that ridiculous 600mm lens on long hikes?" Buddy, I can see mountains reflected in the eyes of a trailside pika.
It’s not about the money for the GOP anymore. Their voters are so rabidly pro-gun that moving towards any significant gun control would cost them their seats.
And the Packers are eating about $35M in dead money this year for Kenny Clark, though it frees up $15M in the future. (from The Bad Place).
Three possible reasons: 1. They limited their criticism because they were hoping to maintain some influence over Netanyahu. They would’ve lost it if they were too harsh. 2. Politics - they were afraid of losing moderate votes. 3. Things have gotten worse since then.
To be honest…my feeling has always been that the “Nazi“ warnings from the left were never that far off-base. There are plenty of decent people on the right, but when push comes to shove, there was enough racism on the right to take over.
And it’s already a Sunday night game. What did the league know and when did they know it?
This is one of the best ones in a while. None of them ever really lock in as a primary pair.
Whether it’s a good idea or not, it’s just not feasible. There’s too many guns out there, and any attempt at mass confiscation would be resisted. This is an analysis from someone who’s gone hard-right in the Trump era, but his math aligns with my gut feeling. esr.ibiblio.org?p=8053
Winner
Maybe they just saw a light in your window and thought “Shit, Mom’s awake. We better get back inside before she grounds us forever.”
I think the global consensus on Trump is that kissing his ass is the best way to get anything from him.
Your professor clearly has the boorish manners of a Yalie!
Even if it was, it’s explicitly unconstitutional, per multiple SCOTUS decisions.
This is the sort of petty legalism in the cause of freedom we should all aspire to.
Bra-fucking-vo. Thank you for having the cojones. Just make sure you stay safe and respect any local no-burn days.
Scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt, And any thing that may not misbecome The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.
Unfortunately there are probably enough local officials who are Trump-sympathetic - especially in police departments.
Conservatives lost in the UK. Democrats lost in the US. Their policies weren’t very similar. A lot of dissatisfaction with governments in 2024 was due to post-COVID inflation and global instability.
I also think the “happy warrior” model of activist is dangerous. It creates people who there for the struggle, rather than to get certain outcomes. I really do believe it’s a huge reason the right has become so combative - they crave the fight.
I’m not convinced this is the case - or at least, I don’t think it’s the case for the vast majority of Dem voters. They want politics to be something that isn’t all-consuming anymore. They want politicians who don’t start cults of personality.
The economy was pretty good, but voters felt the economy was bad because of inflation.
If anything, this was the least winnable election for Democrats since WWII. bsky.app/profile/jbur...
Well, that’s because Trump’s victory last year convinced a lot of Democrats that voters are really just that terrible. And the doom scenarios are really just that bad.
📌
Like my main pitch to the Dems, as a former and repentant RW actor, is: you have to take some pelts, gang. I'm not saying take all the pelts, but: much of what you see is a Right that acts the way they do because they don't believe you, the Dems will do something about it.
If it does happen I just hope it does before 1/20/27. That way this counts as a term for Vance. Worst case scenario would be Vance having some incumbent boost but still free to run for two terms.
I thought all that was in The Last Jedi, which was Rian Johnson.
FYI, if you are renewing your passport book but don’t have a passport card, you can get a card at the same time. However, you have to apply for your renewal by mail, not online.
You guys. The Lisa Cook story isn’t about her mortgages. Please please please stop being so credulous.
But today is a holiday! It’s World Mosquito Day! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_M...
Democrats need to begin with the truth: "My opponents' intent is destruction of the public good and theft and murder of the people who live here, which poisons even the few facts they get right; therefore, there's no point in finding common ground; we should seek only to oppose and defeat them."
His constituents are culturally aligned with Trump, and therefore are more likely to vote for him even if it hurts their finances.
You have to convince them to vote at all, and then convince them to vote for your candidate. Convincing a frequent swing voter to vote for a Democrat only requires one of those steps, and takes a vote away from a Republican in the process.
Go back to Twitter with the rest of the delusional Trumpists.
A Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by three-quarters of the states. I don’t see how an amendment that’s in any way controversial gets passed without a huge machine getting behind it - and even then I wouldn’t hold my breath.
What could they do? They literally had no leverage over Manchin. He had all the leverage over them. And before you could say “they could at least try”…why? Attempting to push Manchin greatly increased the odds he’d switch parties.
This is actually a reasonable strategy. One thing you can say about people who voted for Trump is that they actually vote. It’s hard to know how many people stay home as a protest vote versus those who stay home out of apathy.
I have to assume this only happens if they put in a salary cap. If a salary cap goes in without a very high salary floor…well, that’s another reason to riot.
Outside Dupont north metro
Yep. And a decent amount of the country is.
Awesome! Hope you got a chance to use the grenade launcher! (Or is that implied in the use of “boom” rather than “bang”?)
He is a masterly showman, sadly.
I mean I got a lot of takes but I always keep coming back to that one, I can't believe we're going full autocracy for Donald fucking Trump of all people
Unfortunately we won’t have an incumbent in 2028. Best Dems can hope for in that department is Vance - or someone else indelibly stained as a Trumpist.
I would be very skeptical about that. Progressives need to find a candidate who can win a statewide race in a purple state before we can trust a presidential nomination to them. I feel like Fetterman was the closet they’ve had to that in a while and…well, that backfired.
They didn’t vote to stop it?
I think the whole point is that there are *much* bigger differences between Democrats & Republicans than there were more than 30 years ago. Wow…was it that long ago?
In other words: They lied.
I will absolutely agree that he became much more respectable once Trump entered office and essentially ripped the mask off the GOP.
Yes, but we’re talking about 2012. That year, he essentially became the party leader and embraced a good chunk of their extreme policies.
More importantly, he became the leader of a party that had become blatantly obstructionist, was more and more conspiratorial, and listening to its extremes. The most charitable thing you can say is that he got tarred by the same brush the rest of his party roundly deserved.
Romney was a decent enough governor of Massachusetts, but swung hard right to get the nomination. He also picked a fiscal extremist as his VP nominee. Those two things earned him some of the grief he got during the campaign.
I was simply pointing out that there’s no long history of treating opposing presidential candidates with decency and decorum.
But it wasn’t universal back then. McCain was riding on a high-character reputation, and the attacks against Obama were unusually bad for the time. Kerry and Dukakis would not agree that we treated all our presidential candidates well. And McCain was no perfect saint either…he did pick Palin.
Was it civil or criminal?
Or Trump names John Barron acting head of the BLS. Or gives the acting job to…Rubio? I suppose the logical person to wear the hat would be the current Secretary of Labor, and she could just give the reins to this new Big Balls 2 guy.
This is going to sound a bit kooky, but…I almost feel like that’s the point. This administration is actively attacking expertise *everywhere*.
Both Apple Translate and Google Translate think it’s Croatian, not Serbian. Apple can’t actually translate either language, though. Google translates it from both languages into “People have to live in life.”
At an event commemorating the 200th birthday of the United States, a sitting Supreme Court Justice was invited to celebrate "the memory of the Founders and the document they drafted in Philadelphia." Justice Thurgood Marshall declined
I mean, you’ve got that much orbital lift infrastructure, why not just go the Rods from God route?
If someone has a well-known quote like this, you probably shouldn’t do lawsuit-worthy things to them. 🤪🤡
No Central Park penthouse apartment? Seriously, though, I applaud your taste in teams. Thoughthe Mets’ starters’ inability to get through the sixth inning this year without imploding has been really frustrating.
Would it be that members of the country club are worried about losing their membership privileges?
Can Dems win them back with economic arguments? I think a lot of them might be lost to culture-war issues. I think that’s the big question - how many working-class former Dems can be won back with progressive economic policies, versus the number of professional-type swing voters they’d lose.
Fair enough. But that parallel still applies. The issue with progressive candidates isn’t whether Democrats are OK with them… it’s that Republicans absolutely hate them. And Dems are afraid of losing races because of that.
I think the majority of moderate Dem voters are scared off of progressive candidates by electability issues or political feasibility. They like progressive policies when they stand alone - it’s the candidates that they vote against. In a place like NYC, electability isn’t as much of a risk.
You can be a non-progressive without being a neoliberal (I think). But I agree that some centrists actively don’t want progressive policies. I think that may be concentrated in a part of the leadership and the never-Trump Republicans that are currently voting with Dems.
The alliance between “Tech Bros” & “Theo Bros” (via NatCon, New Founding, “the Gundo,” etc) needs *much* more attention and sunshine than it has received so far. Before the midterm election would be good. Thread.
Or just make it some horribly transparent Kennedy-supported move to get Nantucket and the Vineyard into a separate “New England Islands” state. You could even have them try to call it Kennedy! I’m already getting way too into this.
Maybe some shoddy data-center-feeding nuclear plant on the island goes into meltdown and RI calves the state off to dodge the expenses. The remaining residents are *pissed* and go full GOP.
Believe it or not, the state’s full name was the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; they only changed the name formally in 2020. You could have something horribly DVcore happen on the island and make the rest of the state want to split it off. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_I...
I’m assuming you’re thinking of upstate conservatives ditching the NYC area, similar to Jefferson, Lincoln, or Liberty in the PNW?
Progressives don’t win because there are plenty of non-progressive Democrats and those moderate Dems are afraid the progressives would cost them general elections. That’s about it.
Bernie didn’t win the primary, and didn’t win in 2020 against an (initially) more fractured field where he probably ought to have done better. And if fundraising decided elections, Amy McGrath would be in the Senate instead of Mitch McConnell. newrepublic.com/article/1652...
The article’s included in Apple News+; here’s a link for those with a subscription. apple.news/AiYb32rilSB2...
They also want to avoid the “socialist” label. That’s much more important than one PAC’s support.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. NYC is more liberal than most of the rest of the country, and RCV lets people vote for an outlier candidate without the risk of “wasting their vote”.
Is the fact that I understand this reference immediately a sign I’m way too online for my own good?
And honestly have been for a while. They voted D when someone like Romney was on the GOP ticket, but Trump talks like them.
Activating those working class populist voters probably means giving ground on cultural issues. I’m not sure that’s wise - it’s basically throwing chum the water for conservative culture warriors.
Perhaps, but I sincerely doubt there’s any way to make a charge like that stick. I think the constitution restricts treason to acts that “and and comfort the enemy” - and that “enemy” here is generally defined as an opponent in an overt war.
The conservative legal movement's commitment to the transmogrification of the Reconstruction Amendments never surprises, but it always disgusts, insults, and endangers
Hope you & the family member get well soon & don’t have any long-term effects. Thank you to your family member for testing & to you for isolating, even when it means canceling an event.
Which would be worse - Cannon or Bove?
Sounds like it has a lot of Civ or Stellaris-like functions. Or a Crusader Kings game set in the Dune universe.
May I ask why you think it’s a bad metric?
Well, yeah. If your time travel is limited to methods that create new timelines upon a change, it only makes sense if either (a) you think your change is big enough to create a net positive throughout the new timeline or (b) you’ll be present long enough to make multiple positive changes.
But the percentage of total people suffering across the two timelines is now 45%. That’s a net decrease in total relative suffering.
from that point to the alternative now, we’ll assume is 40% suffering. (Yes, that also assumes no unintended negative side effects). Now, if the two timelines’ populations are roughly equal, then yes, I’ve increased the absolute number of suffering people by 80%.
Yeah, but we eventually end up with an alternate now that’s better than our now. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that, from the birth of Hitler to now, our timeline has been 50% suffering. If I go back in time and kill Hitler, it creates a new timeline that…
I think that’s the main thrust behind the “kitchen table issues” Democrats. They feel that if moral concerns were sufficient to sway voters, Trump would have lost in a landslide.