Traveler, now in Chicago. Trans. Gigantic reader of politics and trashy fiction. Nerd. Professional.
274 followers 306 following 3,298 posts
view profile on Bluesky
No, I wouldn't. If you said "damn, it sucks that Qatar has slaves now, thanks Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani!" I might point out that there are people far more responsible than him for the situation. Whole thing reminds me of Democrats getting ALL the blame for NAFTA and the drone war.
Show me where I said "don't attack Obama"
If all you care about is winning, republicans are right there. If you care about what happens after winning, you are welcome to join the discussions you are trying to shut down.
You're giving a pass to the people who started the war crimes, did the majority of them, and provided the legal justification for them, in order to snipe at liberals. Your high horse is a skeleton.
You seem to have things backwards. I'm saying that you are blaming liberals for (not stopping?) a policy they didn't start. By your analogy, I'd be telling you to blame the Nazis for the Holocaust while you posted memes blaming America for it.
Weird how it started under GW Bush, and liberals were pissed at it, and Obama kept doing it as a concession to bipartisanship, but somehow liberals are the ones you feel the need to call out.
No. #1 is making people's lives better. Winning elections is a means to that end. If they aren't 'electable' then the need is to persuade the public and lead them to a better place. Feed the public's prejudices and dumb ideas back to them just gets us Trump.
Was thinking of the dibao, a/k/a minimum livelihood guarantee. Went nationwide in 2007.
It's a weird dicotomy, in that illiberal usually means aristocratic (or pseudo-aristocratic) authoritarianism, but China is still getting the growth-supporting parts of liberalism by leashing their billionaires and providing a safety net. Which the more-liberal US is worse at, and so does worse.
Why would we woo them back instead of doing trust busting? They are the opposition to liberalism, not it's allies. Seriously, make share buybacks illegal market manipulation again, tax capital gains as income, and wait for them to come crawling with offers.
If you assume their goals and theory of change are obviously wrong and so must be a cover for something else, yes you can project whatever you want onto them. It's what they do to liberals, after all, and the refusal of both sides to see they are mirroring eachother is definitely something.
Yeah, watching writers get screwed by the editors like that's been frustrating even from the outside. Good luck with the next place!
She was a minor at the time he was harassing her, fwiw.
Wes streeting has not been shy about sharing his opinions about trans folk either... We like him about as much as he respects us.
Your ability to build a coalition is admirable. /S
They also say things like 'it should be treated and not indulged' as if there were a way to just *stop* people from being trans.
'Transgender activist' if you want to obscure that we are impacted personally by the policies under discussion.
Idk. People learn their politics from this stuff, it's not a place you can just assume people get the wink and nudge.
Isn't a good chunk of it just a cali supreme court decision that private actors could challenge on environmental grounds regardless of project approval or progress? Can that be reversed without legislation?
Easy to do if we just solve the distribution/ownership problem. All of the payoff of tech is getting captured by a small number of people while the downsides are spread widely. (AI vs artists and writers, for example.)
The actual value is added by the peer reviewers, who no one wants to pay. So of course it's broken, it's like NCAA sports.
So we just need to accept that we cannot change things in a socialist direction and so never vote to try even in a primary. Oh, but we should absolutely vote anyways. Is that your position? Nah. You miss the point of primaries.
Bernie would have been better for low and middle income earners. Tactical voting is for the general election. Primaries are for the best option..
I was just reading the dude's follow up article about how lineman harassed Sophia, and it did correct course a bit. Still phrased in 'the court was told' framing
True, but a solution in search of a problem finding it's problem is almost romantic. Finally, it's sleazy wanderer ways can come to an end and it can settle down? ;)
We actually have a use case for blockchain now: proving that pictures and videos were actually taken by a camera and aren't just AI slop
Going to be real interesting to see how they try to sell testosterone reduction as increasing aggression, but I suppose they'll just lie about it.
And thus we've finally found an actual use case for blockchain.
Idk I just shout "Pritzker!" at them. It's not like they even need to look very hard.
And polling about the same, to my understanding. No one likes the 'we are just a bit better than the worst people!' types. There's no point in bragging about how you are turning the steering wheel further than it's ever been turned of you are still going to crash into the wall.
Governments are almost exclusively populated by people who benefit from wealth being untaxed and ownership being obscured. Why would they move without being forced?
Well, this tells me you've only ever heard about left-wong policies from people who don't want them implemented. Thing no one wants to say is that unless we get far left eco policy, worldwide, most cities aren't going to exist in a century. Far left social policy is just common sense.
Ooooor, it's because the president gets fingered as a child rapist. Which also has national security implications, from the succession crisis.
We can see the sophistication of the evolutionary process by the convergent nature of the sneakers analogues!
Could have gone for the human rights lawyer who bent over backwards to ignore a genocide and screw trans folk and immigrants. Personally I think thats funnier, but bleak humor isn't for everyone.
Weird way to say 'doesn't think NATO means anything with Trump at the head, and wants a replacement' but ok
Real estate is easy to tax and is a very large chunk of the wealthy's assets. Go from there. Oh, and we can use AI to rip through all those tax dodges and find out who owns what. It'd be enlightening.
You can. The obvious evidence, of course, is all the economic growth that happened while the number of schools and hospitals declined.
Pity the centrists aren't going to roll back right wing policy; you need left wing populists for that.
The relevant difference to me is trans rights. YP is silent and hiring TERFs, Greens look to be literally the only option for trans people who don't want to vote themselves a punch in the face.
I feel like a traitor to my city every time I reach for the ketchup, but the mouth likes what it likes...
Florida DA, Acosta, who was given a job as Trump's labor secretary, made a deal with Dershowitz, who was Epstein's lawyer and then Trump's. Linkages matter, I think.
Kazuko M. "It's autumn, crickets, Whether you may Chirp or not." -Soseki Natsume [image: Koson Ohara]
It is unless he puts the effort in, yeah. He *could* still fire the dude and make a statement of it, but I'd give it a 2% chance.
Then I'd be very salty about it
If you like popcorn fantasy and are cool with jumping on trends, 4th Wing is a good example of this
It's an easy controversy to put to rest. Right now, the *only* party-level statements on trans rights are the hiring decisions. If Corbyn and Sultana's personal position is going to be a party line, say so. If it's going to be 'individual conscious', then say that. But don't try and do a Starmer
Yes. And he needs to make the rest of his party toe the line.
I felt the same way about ChangeUK when that happened; I do expect YP to do better than CUK though
I don't think it's possible to be a leftist politician on the national level and still accept criticism. If they did, they'd be dragged into the center by sheer volume. You either hold your positions against everyone or you move towards the consenus. Corbyn or AOC, basically.
I think this is exactly the kind of argument on which bluesky most aggressively misses the point.
Does this remind you too about the demands that he condemn antisemitism, regardless of how often he did?
Apparently he did, in the post immediately before this one.
The ask was for a statement from Corbyn in support, and that's what was provided.
'Oppression' covers all flavors of oppression. If you mean racism then say racism.
No, I'm afraid 'every accusation is a confession' is definitely a conservative thing.
Sure you can. White people do it to white people all the time.
I'm ambivalent about that one b/c military scifi isn't really my jam, but I love that author's cyberpunk novel. Neon Dragons ftw
Yeah, ignoring the bullshit people say about you for the greater good is a necessary skill. I dislike the framing though, since when it's used by groups in power its almost always justification for collective punishment.
Saying "you are all the same" to a demographic split 60/40 is going to get rejected by 40% of that demographic. I don't think there's a way to get around that.
Way to lecture someone who voted against it on how they voted for it. Genius.
The opportunity to vote against that shit was there. I took it. More people need to.
It does look like uncommitted has been successful in moving the democratic voters onto the Palestinian side, and making it clear that not being against genocide will lose you the election if you are a Democrat. Sucks that the other party was even more genocidal.
Pritzker! I didn't expect to like a billionaire when he got elected, but what he's done is good shit.
I voted in the primary for Williamson, as the most principled. What did you do?
The signs say 'Biden/Harris' because voting for Biden was also voting for Harris.
...are people just not aware of royal road, scribblehub, ao3, and web serials? There's a TON being written (and read!) by people who don't expect to make money at it.
In 2024. The only people who bothered to run were Biden, Dean Philips, Marianne Williamson, and RFK jr.
It's why voting in primaries matters, right? Otherwise your choices are 'greater evil', 'lesser evil', or 'either evil is fine, someone else choose'.
You cannot hold anyone accountable if you refuse to see who is responsible for shit. All democrats voted against this. All republicans voted for it. www.congress.gov/bill/119th-c...
False promises? Like 'tariffs will make you better off' or 'tax cuts will mean more jobs'? False promises are more a Republican thing. Rural areas sure do get told that democrats disrespect them a lot though. By Republicans.
"pressure" is just rhetoric. Conservative rhetoric. There's no actual linkage or reason to link the two. Plus, you missed the tax cuts. This is rich republicans not wanting to pay for poor people. No more, no less.
That decision is irrelevant to cutting health care funding. You want it to be a tradeoff. It isn't a tradeoff. It is two separate choices because we do deficit spending. We can have both, or neither, or just one.
Republicans are punishing them for how they voted. Not Democrats.
Be better how? Over-ruling the elected government? You are missing the whole 'one side decided to do this, the other side opposed but has no power to stop it' reality.
Gee, it's almost like you ignored the 'how much money is going to hospitals' and 'who voted to cut hospitals' points completely in favor of talking about military spending. Hospitals aren't closing because of money to military. They are closing because of cuts to health care.
That's rejecting reality in favor of nihilism. The other party has spent 30 years trying to get more people health care despite it losing them votes. Being angry is good. Getting tricked into thinking your allies are actually the same as your enemies is not.
We've put up with 30 years of red districts being loud and proud about "fuck the cities and everyone in them". The liberal vibes mirroring that seem like another example of chickens coming home to roost.
Right. It's the republicans who are making the laws that say we cannot fund healthcare. They decided people are going to die so they can look tough. All we can do is try to minimize those deaths. Which is what keeping the urban hospitals open would do.
We don't get a choice about that. The republicans made the laws; people are going to die because of those laws. The thing we are discussing is how to minimize those deaths.
Yeah. It's just illegal to spend it on hospitals because those are the choices the republicans have made.
Which is a fascinating way of pretending that democrats are responsible for things they have literally no control over.
Have you not noticed that this is exactly what is currently happening? It's not a hypothetical.
Because we aren't in charge right now and don't get a choice.
It's almost like you love in a world where republicans don't exist. It's not like the rest of us get a choice about this. They already made that choice for us. Blame them.
There is only as much money as the republicans will allocate. Of course there's more money. It doesn't change the fact that there is no money for hospitals. Because of Republicans.
You must have missed the republican budget that is actually doing the removing money from hospitals thing.
Yeah. Why? Because the Republicans decided that we would have cops and missiles but not hospitals. Who put the Republicans into power? The people who are going to be hurt the most from the lack of rural hospitals.
The republicans made it law to do so. We are proposing to minimize the impacts of that vote.
Net positive? No. Unavoidable consequence of what the republicans voted for? Yes. We are trying to minimize harm at this point. Minimizing harm is a good thing.
I would note that as fewer rural areas vote Democrat, there are fewer Democrats to represent their interests in these discussions. So when the Republicans decide to screw them there's no one on the other side to push back.
That's been true ever since Constantine though.
The weird part of that to me was the 'I still wish I could be a girl' line right after that- it read like they gave up on transition despite being trans and lost all hope for anything in the aftermath.
Nice of you to decide how I feel for me. I can see where your politics come from, if you do that regularly.
Lol. Historical revisionism says what? Your right to have a gun is conditional on membership of a *well regulated* militia, per the plain text of the constitution. We aren't the country with the most rights and freedoms. The second amendment has never gotten us any rights or freedoms.
Right. Not having a gun stops them.
That's nice of you. I'd prefer a change in behavior but I'll take a sandwich.
Accepting that you cannot win before you even try is dumb.
Hi. Remember the blue dogs? I do. You are calling out centrist behavior and pretending it's the left wing doing it.