Dunno, WWeek just said it "it didn’t poll as well". Maybe the full interview video goes into more detail but I'm too lazy to watch it.
Dunno, WWeek just said it "it didn’t poll as well". Maybe the full interview video goes into more detail but I'm too lazy to watch it.
yeah, but I'm talking about the initial focus-group polling the group behind it did.
The problems with this approach were obvious to me. WWeek pointed out some of them in their opposition to it. Unless the polling for a simple quorum reduction were just abysmal, I wish they had just gone with it and tried to persuade voters.
Apparently it polled better in focus groups. Which to me shows the danger of driving policy by polls.
Is there any bipartisan consensus on what exactly ODOT's problems *are* though? Because it seems like Rs' view is that ODOT is spending too much on transit, which isn't really helpful for finding common ground in reform.
Yeah I just didn't want to imply that malicious antisemitism was rare or something.
That's fair; I could have phrased it better.
(I also don't really take his use of "a lot" to mean "the majority of the left", necessarily. That's *a* read, I guess, but I don't think it's objectively the correct one. People use that phrase more loosely, especially when talking about behaviors they've witnessed.)
Again, they are pushing back against a point he *didn't make*. And if your argument is that he heavily implied it, then you're arguing he's implying something he disagrees with (he's repeatedly criticized the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism by groups like the ADL). Why would he do that?
And if we're quibbling with his "a lot of people" framing, I don't think it's really trying to find an exact percentage or whatever; it's enough that it bothers him as an anti-Zionist Jewish scholar.
That's why I was attacking reading comprehension on the internet. People see posts like Joel saying that antisemitism exists on the left and a bunch of people immediately jumped to "anti-Zionism isn't antisemitic" which is true, but he also never argued otherwise in his post, so why say that?
I'm talking about replies to his post like these which completely miss the point. Joel didn't defend Zionism or claim anti-Zionism was antisemitic, quite the opposite, in fact. And the replies are full of comments "refuting" this claim he never made.
At least, that's what I understood Joel's point to be. Apologies if I mischaracterized you, Joel.
It's also absolutely true that there are Zionists who wield accusations of antisemitism in bad faith against anti-Zionists (and Joel has criticized groups like ADL for doing this), but this doesn't mean that antisemitism never shows up in anti-Zionism (again, often carelessly more than maliciously).
I've seen it off and on; it's definitely a thing. Often unintentional; invoking some old tropes or microaggressions. But more importantly, Joel is very vocal that Israel is committing a genocide and should be criticized for that. He's worth a listen.
The idea is, the minority party could use that time to try and raise public opposition to some objectionable bill, but wouldn't be able to just stop it completely.
I will say, I would be OK with a change that allowed walkouts on a temporary basis. Like a third of the legislature could walk out and delay a vote, but doing so would start a countdown after which the quorum would be reduced to ½.
It's a perfect example of determining policy entirely by focus-group testing instead of deciding what policy would be best and then persuading the voters. They saw that this option polled better and completely disregarded the obvious concerns.
It was always likely that reps would be willing to give up their seats (why not, they only work in Salem part time) and that their voters would approve of that tactic and send back more reps who would also walk out. Not to mention issues with determining what a valid excuse was and potential abuse.
I'm still angry that the people behind the last referendum went with the method they did instead of quorum reduction despite it introducing a bunch of new problems and not being guaranteed to solve the problem (which it didn't). Contrary to that article I don't think the result was "unexpected".
I'm sorry you're dealing with because your point is really important.
It's a microcosm of the internet's reading comprehension. So, so many people see your post and automatically go into "it's not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israel" even though you never actually stated otherwise (and a five-second glance at your timeline would reveal you regularly do).
I still use them, but I will definitely see posts on the timelines that don't make it to the feed.
Be advised that feeds do frequently miss posts.
Get ready for more "historic parking lots"
Reported them.
Lindsay Ellis just released a 2½ video about her (and the Christian-rights attacks on "empathy", and the Christian Zionist movement, and bad-faith claims of antisemitism) if you have some time and want to be angry.
Yeah lol. She's spoken up for Palestinian children and some people are Not Happy.
Well, that's disappointing.
Pritzker is *right there*, people. I'm not claiming he's the messiah but he's demonstrably a better person than Newsom.
We need to start building a groundswell of revulsion toward Gavin Newsome now, otherwise we might get stuck with him.
The heart of the libertarian movement in general, tbh.
Huh, well I do have a formal diagnosis of depression; I guess I can use that.
In this case, I think it's partly because it's a fundraiser for PCRF.
It's also just mainly good for verification. Like I know that @wyden.senate.gov is an official account.
(also also, y'all should see if the City Hall IT team will let you have official portland.gov Bluesky handles)
Thank you.
Thanks. BTW, I was the guy who spoke to you briefly at that July Strong Towns meetup about destriping 17th ave in Sellwood. Did you see my email about it I sent last week? (I sent an earlier one the day after we met but got the address wrong and didn't realize until later)
I guess I'll ping my councilors while we are here: @councilorgreen.bsky.social @councilorclark.bsky.social @councilorzimmerman.bsky.social
Interesting. Why did the code division set it at four stairs? And for that matter, someone asked in another thread why we don't define it based on height. My understanding is that the six-story limit comes from what ladder trucks can reach, so why not define it that way?
Do you know why the state limited it to four floors?
Damn you got me excited for a second.
It's on Worldcat, so ask your local library if you want them to request an interlibrary loan (or see if you can access the online version).
Another one he posted. Choice quote: "Alkaline water, like lemon juice"
My idiot MAGA uncle has started sharing posts about how cancer is caused by parasites. Another post was also suggesting not to cut into them too. Also the cure for basically every illness is ivermectin, big surprise.
The first priority after we oust the MAGA movement should be to require all mayors in the country to be named "Wilson".
They both have names that start with "K", too.
This thread is making me realize that while I hope Wilson wins in Seattle, it is going to be confusing having two Mayor Wilsons.
Feel like that's true for Democrats in general, not just in Oregon.
Yeah but see the problem is that he walked from that interaction thinking two women being in love was OK and not a thing to be upset by and the people freaking out about this want kids to share their disgust.
It angers me that people want to say it shouldn't be protected because it seems like a very pure example of political speech. Like there are so many areas of 1A law that are more open to disagreement, but this seems objectively correct.
It's infuriating, because compared to some other First Amendment issues, this seems like one of the most objective cases of protected speech possible. It's a political statement, and the arguments against it are entirely "it's offensive".
A consistently frustrating part of discourse in general is that people often treat words as having some objective "true" meaning separate from how people interpret them, and that's just not how language works. So you get stuff like this with "Zionism / Zionist".
Dare I ask what she means by "spiritually Israeli"?
Wait is this the first time his joke name has included the full "Popehat" instead of just "Hat"?
Does New York really want a mayor who can't use punctuation properly? (if we're making up bullshit qualifications)
Yeah that seems to jive with what James said, I just couldn't tell if Cuomo just wrote it poorly or if "class free pizza" is a phrase I had never encountered.
Someone else pointed out to me that the unspoken second half of the question "how do I explain this to my kids" is "...so that they don't come to the conclusion that it's completely fine and not a big deal".
I saw the original but honestly it failed to clear things up for me. Like I understand what the first tweet is saying, but it didn't clarify the second for me. The second is just nonsense words to my ears.
I see. The phrase "class free pizza" is not scanning for me. Honestly thought he was making some joke about Marxism and class analysis.
Can you parse what he's saying here? It's a response to the scavenger hunt...somehow.
Been thinking about this since I read another article about the ongoing collapse of Philly's transit system; anti-urbanism is deeply ingrained in American political discourse and more people should push back on it.
I don't think a group of people willing to spend several hours running around the city is a group you need to worry about turning out on election day.
The unspoken second part of "how do I explain this to my kids" is "...so that they conclude that it's wrong and bad and don't decide it's a non-issue".
It genuinely would have never occurred to me that an old, prestigious university like UChicago could be in debt; I'm used to these institutions having enormous endowments from over a century of alumni donations.
Fair enough.
Honestly not an absurd theory. Even a police force sympathetic to Trump probably doesn't want to get shot by someone (and if they did get shot, they probably wouldn't want the shooter to have a plausible claim of self-defense). Why do you think that's not the case?
"But Wren, Trump got to run as the anti-establishment candidate even though he's even wealthier" yeah well, this is the same media that ran endless stories about Biden's mental decline and completely ignore Trump's, so...
I like him and so far he's my top candidate but it will be very surreal if the billionaire ends up being the candidate preferred by the left/progressive wing of the party. I also wonder if that will be a hindrance in a general, given the increasing anti-establishment backlash.
Thanks.
I would say they're worried about being pressured into actually doing something but this would an environment where they could pretty easily control the narrative by who they chose to film and what to publish.
OK question, as someone who has never consumed Dracula in any medium, what's the best movie adaptation to start with?
Obama would be well-suited for it, but it could also be an opportunity for some of the other 2028 hopefuls to gain some attention. Like Pritzker could absolutely fund this program.
That type of metonymy is pretty common in English. Hence how "the clutch" or "the brake" can refer to either the pedal or the actual device. (Which makes "engage the clutch" somewhat ambiguous)
I would include that under "the remote control"
Interesting question, Ebenezer. Why don't *you* start pressuring Team Newsom to support trans people so they (and allies) are more motivated to support him? Or start boosting a candidate like Pritzker who has been vocally defending trans rights? We're three years out, why is Newsom so important?
Searching around apparently the benefits are more ceiling space if you have low headroom or want to put shelving there.
To me "garage door opener" could mean either the machine, the remote control, or a wall-mounted control.
In fairness, I'm an American and I had never heard of wall-mounter garage door openers until that post, and I had to look it up because I couldn't visualize it at all.
Well yes, getting Democratic leadership that's willing to do stuff like abolish the filibuster also needs to be a major priority, and it's upstream of most other needed reforms. But that's a whole 'nother story.
But his claim that it's not politically feasible seems weak to me. We don't know what Congress will look like in a few years, and if Democrats retake control somehow there will be a lot of appetite for shoring up majorities in the Senate (and political reform in general).
And I agree that there's a colonialist undertone in a lot of the rhetoric from Democrats about PR statehood, and I've tried to push back on it at times.
To be clear, my stance for years has been that we shouldn't grant statehood to PR without a successful referendum of Puerto Ricans (for much the same reasons cited in that video). I probably have said "potentially" instead of "likely" in my original post.
But I agree that Puerto Rico and both Mariana Islands territories would likely support statehood. Guam and NMI might be a trickier sell to Congress, given their small size. And there's also the issue of whether they both be willing to join as one state.
I wouldn't be very confident that either American Samoa or the U.S. Virgin Islands would support it either: bsky.app/profile/wren...
I'm not joking; these laws are a boon to child predators and do fuck all to help children.
Well, if they are going to make abusing children easier, they better make sure to define "adult content" as "anything that might help these children recognize the abuse".
"Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is one Democrat who Third Way holds up as a blueprint for the party to connect with voters." Well that knocks him down a few points in my book.
That's true. I know there's been some movement in that direction. Dunno what the big outstanding issues are considered to be.
What would we need to do to do that? Massive public investment from a tax-skeptical public?
On a strictly per-capita basis, the Portland metro area would need to build over 300,000 homes in nine years to match Sweden (or 33,000 per year).
I like the idea of annoying Republicans, I'm just skeptical that it contributes appreciably to the project of actually defeating them. There is something to making Trump into a joke for the purpose of rallying opposition, but I don't know how many this really converts who weren't already here.
"Beating him at his own game" can these guys point to a single way that this has negatively impacted Trump or GOP in the slightest? Or even that they are that getting mad at it?
Looks like it's legislatively-drawn, so yes, if there is an appetite for it.
It's so mealy-mouthed the way she frames it. The people who got to experience the "hope and progress" of slaver did so at the expense of the people who experienced the "horrible aspect". They are entirely different groups, Lindsey!
Poking around this map, no obvious patterns. geo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappv...
Maybe physical separation between traffic directions? Hard to really say until we know more about what happened here. Do you know what happened in the other fatalities?
Dunno. But also I kinda hate Newsom's form of attention-grabbing "trolling", using AI and shit, and I wouldn't want to engage in it even I thought it would work. Like I would feel icky. So maybe that's it.
