bird food bathtub posted:

If things shake out that he goes third party I am looking forward to another round of "....but dogs can't play basketball!" when he ignores all the sore loser laws and just goes ahead and does it anyway. "But technically according to subsection 13, paragraph 8, Trump is not presenting himself as a legally distinct third party candidate he is merely telling his cult followers to write his name in the ballot as is their right to do bing bong so simple laws mean nothing"

the_steve posted:

The "competent fascist" thing is just cope by people who are still desperate to convince themselves that Trump was some sort of wild outlier and fluke that could totally never happen again.

Killer robot posted:

When courts rule against Republicans, typically they do indeed accept it. They come back for a new approach rather than giving up forever, but that's different. And they especially don't just ignore the courts when following procedure gets the same result.

Kith posted:

That's a pretty heavy punishment.

VideoGameVet posted:

Comstar posted:

What ended up stopping them? They broke in, got into some offices… and milled around and walked out.


They didn’t seem any more organized once they smashed a window and climbed in.

cat botherer posted:

Yeah, we really need to care enough about libs to tell them to stop posting pictures of Putin making out with Trump.

Mooseontheloose posted:

MA has passed a bunch of laws protecting LGBTQ rights, ROE codification, and voted for a free lunch program this year. What are you looking for specifically?

Also, we finally passed a millionaires tax, have legal weed, legal gambling, and there maybe a chance at sex work getting decriminalized.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

One with an easy way out such as minting a coin or evoking the 14th amendment? Yes, at work, constantly. And I always take the metaphorical minting of the minting of the coin route personally because I don’t find it worth anyone’s time to reason with unreasonable people. But then again I don’t think like alleged rapist Biden nor his supporters.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Better not doing anything than because of some mythical robed wizards who have zero legal authority to enforce their rulings under the constitution might do moves that benefit republicans. Instead let’s preempt them and gently caress over the most vulnerable.

Like I said, I don’t think like alleged rapist Biden nor his supporters.

Exactly. Anyone claiming that “Dems blinked” or some poo poo are either naive or actively callous. Dems didn’t blink. They nodded gleefully along while loving over the most vulnerable. Liberals are polite conservatives and nothing more.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

The best thing about originalism is the Supreme Court should have absolutely no power, given both the text of the constitution and intent of many of the founding fathers.

Pobrecito posted:

To settle disputes and controversies in certain types of cases in which they are vested original jurisdiction (such as cases between states) and to serve as the ultimate court of appeal. There's plenty for the Supreme Court to do that is specifically authorized by the Constitution beyond reviewing constitutionality via their self-granted authority.

the_steve posted:

Probably because most people look at the usage of the word "power" and apply the context of "power to make laws like the legislators do", which the courts should not be able to do instead of trying to play verbal gotcha.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

“Per se” seems like it’s doing a lot of work here to me.

The constitution grants the Supreme Court zero powers to enforce their ruling. The whole thing is built on a gentlemen’s agreement (excuse the gendered language).

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

To be honest the argument that any of the judges, let alone the Supreme Court as a concept, is legitimate is hilariously foolish without needing to get into the Bush v Gore nonsense. The Supreme Court is granted zero power in the constitution to enforce and rulings and thus can be ignored.

Only those who support the anti-human rights agenda uphold the Supreme Court as anything of worth.

Anyone in power with morals would outright ignore the useless rulings of the Supreme Court and decommission the whole apparatus.

James Garfield posted:

It turns out that some bad things happen when voters elect Republicans

Not as many bad things as when they elected Republicans to the house, senate, and presidency though

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'm not sure incarceration stops a trump candidacy. I'm not sure conviction does.

Eugene Debs ran from jail.

selec posted:

If you have a defensive force what’s it there for? You have a defensive alliance to defend against something, and create or encourage an atmosphere of military competition by its very existence.

It’s like Ring cameras and Nextdoor. That guy they post about used to just be a guy walking in your neighborhood. But now that they have footage to post, it’s a suspicious individual, casing their neighborhood. What changed? Nothing, except the creation of a system that makes them paranoid by its very existence.

The terror level color code scheme the Bush administration was always wailing about was the same concept. You have a tool, you will feel compelled to use it.

Papercut posted:

Not to speak for anyone else, but my read is that people are not arguing from the basis that the US is good, they're arguing that the premise that joining a defensive alliance is an act of aggression is absurd

Lib and let die posted:

The issue I have with Leon's statement is that it ascribes the mandate of union membership to the company - the fact that politically conservatives states have employment conditions that allow companies to have mixed membership workforces simply goes to show that companies don't want unions and will seek to disempower and minimize the % of unionized workers wherever possible.

Leon is painting a picture - intentionally or not - of compassionate capitalists wanting union membership - such a concept is absurd, and should be rejected on principle.

Gumball Gumption posted:

The Pentagon now says that the Chinese spy balloons did not collect or transmit any intelligence information while over the US. There are also recent reports the equipment was off the shelf commercially available american parts but the Pentagon will not confirm that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66062562

quote:

He said the efforts the US took to mitigate any intelligence gathering "contributed" to the balloon's failure to gather sensitive information.

zoux posted:

There's a lot of conspiratorial thinking on the left as regards the process of politics and government, where people assume that vast Machiavellian conspiracies like Rotating Villain Theory are primary movers where it's all just institutional inertia, cross-pressuring, and the ebb and flow of politics. Remember it's Veep not West Wing.

Harold Fjord posted:

these don't seem to describe the same things. Maybe you should try being objective

Or squinting

Willa Rogers posted:

I provided plenty of proof that it was executive-branch agencies pressuring companies to censor speech, not just Nadler & Schiff being assholes.

Again, I'll let Koos decide whether I've provided the proof he's demanded, because this gish galloping is exhausting.

I've stated both my beliefs on the matter to the extent I can without getting circular or (more) repetitive, and supported my contentions to the best of my ability.

eta: Koos, maybe if you tell me which specific rules my fan club has reported me for violating I can clear up any misunderstandings that arose as a consequence.

Willa Rogers posted:

eta: This entire crap came to light with the government intelligence agencies telling social media to censor information about Hunter's laptop, and that's leaving aside their corralling 51 intelligence officials to intimate that it was fake news when it wasn't.

Mellow Seas posted:

This does not describe the life of a majority of Trump voters. Stop making excuses for people who support inequality, bigotry and hatred.

Main Paineframe posted:

Usually it's that the company already has office space and is tired of seeing the space empty. They're already paying rent on that space, and for one reason or another they can't just end the leases entirely and give up their physical presence altogether, so they want to see that space used. Besides, in-person work is easier for managers to manage.

There doesn't seem to be any real consensus on the productivity impact of remote work. Some studies say it increases productivity, some say it decreases it. It's hardly clear-cut. What does seem to be the consensus is that workers tend to think WFH increases their efficiency, while managers tend to think WFH decreases productivity.

selec posted:

I dunno what I’m supposed to feel about Taiwan but I know I don’t care much one way or the other. I do know I’d prefer not to go to war, regardless of what China does.

Jesus III posted:

They want to return Social Security to it's roots and make it only for white women

Shrecknet posted:

Malls are dying because people don't have any time (to shop) or money (to shop with). Back in the 90s you could wander the mall because your one job gave you enough money to buy some stupid poo poo. Now you gotta have two jobs plus drive Uber to survive, not enough time to go shopping, plus poo poo's expensive now so you have to just buy the cheapest version of whatever you need off Wish and hope you didn't accidentally buy the dollhouse furniture size of what you needed.

fizzy posted:

CNN, ABC News and NBC News have each reported that upon hearing about McConnell's latest freezing incident, President Joe Biden called Mitch a "friend" and a "good friend" and that he (Joe Biden) would "try to get in touch with him later (McConnell) this afternoon".





There is a also a video of Joe Biden making those remarks posted on the Youtube channel of WFAA (a television station licensed to Dallas, Texas, United States, serving the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex as an affiliate of ABC) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNYcYYvfv4


Assuming that Joe Biden did in fact make the remarks that he was reported to have made, the newsworthiness of those remarks arise from the following:

(a) If Joe Biden was sincere in making those remarks and does indeed view Mitch McConnell as a good friend of his, one would have to re-evaluate either one's assessment of McConnell's character, or re-evaluate one's assessment of Joe Biden's character and suitability to be the President of the United States.

(b) Alternatively, if Joe Biden was insincere in making those remarks, one would have to re-evaluate the sincerity of Joe Biden's other public-facing remarks, including his campaign promises and policy pledges, and accordingly his character and suitability to be the President of the United States.

celadon posted:

The idea that western institutions don't set conditions on loans is also inaccurate. From an article on Zambia and Chinese funding:

plainswalker75 posted:

Frankly I'd rather listen to someone ramble on about astrology and star charts than loving Myers-Briggs types

Quixzlizx posted:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1702676142132752596

Let's Go Brandon