The DNC would never allow it. They have actively worked against him twice and at least once they took bribes. Ahem. Sorry. Contingency based donations.
Him telling anyone to back Biden shows they have a political gun to his back, but God do we need him in office. Too bad the rich are for some reason opposed to taxing the the rich 🤷
A lot of people have been taught to have an idealized concept about Democracy.
The reality is democracy is the worst system… except for all the others.
In an ideal world you’d be able to vote for a candidate that is a perfect match for your political positions. But we’re pretty fucking far from an ideal world.
The reality of democracy is that isn’t about getting exactly what you want. It really only gives you a way to remove terrible people from power. And keep terrible people from gaining power.
Yeah that sucks, but it’s better than living in an authoritarian system where you have to use violence to remove terrible people from power. And likely fail and die while attempting to do so.
If Trump wins, that’s what it’ll be, an authoritarian system where you can’t remove the terrible person from power by voting.
If Biden wins, it’ll be more bullshit, but you’ll be able to vote again in the next election after that.
Do you really think you can reduce democracy down to being able to remove the worst people? I don’t necessarily disagree just find that interesting. What about if we also had ranked choice?
There best form of government is an enlightened despot, it so I’ve read. However if the wind of the king are law, then when things go bad, they really go bad. And the transition of power gets ugly.
The problem with democracy is that humans are actually stupid fucking apes and they fear math, so they simplify the math to the point of undermining the whole system.
This problem also shows up in some welfare systems with a simple rather than gradual cutoff if you start working more. Stay below 60% employment or lose all help immediately.
Honestly it is awful, but if you're female you need to get the hell out of these deep red states that think they have any right to regulate women's bodies.
Not everyone has the money and ability to uproot themselves and leave their entire support system behind. The more liberal areas with more protections tend to be high population regions with a high cost of living. We need nationwide protection of access to medical care so you don’t have to move just to get the care you need or to be able to provide an ethical level of care to your patients if you are in the medical profession.
One oversight by the article: changes in household size.
[Edit: I deleted an incorrect paragraph about population trends in the United States; I had misremembered a regional trend as a national one.]
For example, even if the housing supply and population in an area stay constant, if fewer people are living in each housing unit you’ll get a shortage. Yet nowhere in the article’s numerical analysis is there mention of this additional factor.
This is not to say that landlords aren’t a problem, but the entire premise of the article is that based on population and housing supply trends the supply “crisis” does not exist, which without incorporating changes in household size into their calculations is simply not a conclusion you can make.
Where are you getting this? To me it looks like household size dropped precipitously between 1947 and 1990, and then stabilized around 2.6 in 1990, and now it's around 2.5. I think rent has gone up a little more than 4% since 1990 though.
I actually would guess that you're probably right about an increase in single people or couples or empty nesters as compared with big families, but that it's been offset by a rise in young or semi-young adults living with roommates. That's just me guessing though.
You’re correct, I’ve amended my comment accordingly (I had mixed up demographic trends in California with national tends). However given that the article spends a lot of time comparing now and the 1970s, when there was a statistically significant difference in household size in the US, I feel that my point still stands, that we should know if there has also been a similar decrease in household size in the UK over the last half-century.
So his first amendment right is to call for the murder of the top military, disparage election processes and their employees, intimidate witnesses that are part of an investigation against him as well as the judiciaries in charge of that process. But no one in anyway shape or form are allowed to call him out on this.
They come after a Washington Post poll gave Trump a 10-point lead over Joe Biden, who beat him in 2020, in a notional 2024 general election matchup.
And yet somehow this idea of government by a fascist dictator seems to really appeal to a lot of people. It’s hard to understand why people find this so attractive. I guess it’s selfishness and the mistaken notion that he would work for their interests.
All Biden has to do is drop out of the race. Literally any other dem would trounce this criminal clown. Unfortunately since Biden is the best guarantee of not upsetting the status quo, it won’t happen, and the monied interests risk losing democracy to a fascist dictator in order to possibly save a few tax dollars.
If the UAW prevails on 30%+ wage hike, and/or 4 day week Tesla won’t have any option other than doing some sort of high wage increase or reduced hours. Not doing so will almost certainly cause its workers to unionize.
I wonder if the UAW would settle for a 9 day 2 weeks, might be harder to plan work around though for the manufacturers than a consistent 4 day
The GM plant near me currently does alternating 6 day and 5 day weeks, I'm not sure if that's the same across all of their plants but there is already precedent within their system for inconsistent week lengths.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Basically buying time to attempt to win the election and abuse power to pardon himself or block prosecution, and if that fails, he’s still gonna have plenty of time to flee the country before his court date is due. Or drag it on until after statute of limitation.
They do if Gerrymandering and voter suppression makes it so they have no power. They’re fine sharing power, but if they see a possibility of having none, they will fight back
Obviously he wants to pardon himself. Trump fancies himself to be above the law, and until now he hasn't had any meaningful consequences for his many illegal and immoral acts.
He probably also thinks once he becomes president again, executive privileges would apply and he could simply day he is withholding all those documents legally.
I'm sure he will continue to spew self-justifying lies, but that's not how any of this works. The crimes he's accused of are a slam dunk, heaps of evidence, Trump was even bragging about having the classified documents and showing them off to others to self-aggrandize and gain favor, including Kid Rock of all people.
I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem.
It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection).
THAT is the problem- and it’s an unprecedented problem. The 14th established the precedent, and no, trump IS guilty and we all know it- “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal assumption designed to ensure due process and the protection of civil liberties. It is an assumption and not a statement of fact.
I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem. It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection). ... The 14th established the precedent
That's not what's being said here, and the precedent regarding the 14th probably isn't what you're presuming. From the article I linked above:
The [14th] amendment was invoked one time in more than a century to bar someone from office
There is some historical precedent, as the amendment has been used to bar someone from office — but only once in more than a century.
In 1919, Congress used the 14th Amendment to bar Victor Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin and an elected official, from joining the House because he actively opposed the US entering World War I.
In that case, a special committee convened and concluded that Berger was unfit for office. He was then barred by a simple majority in the Senate and the House. Because of this, some believe congressional precedent shows only a simple majority is needed.
But Congress barring someone from joining its own body is notably different, Kalir said.
"To think that the US Congress could prevent someone from becoming president of the United States other than through impeachment is big — it's a big legal leap."
Berger's case was also 102 years ago, and there has been no use of this section since.
Kalir said if it were invoked today, it could be challenged in court and ultimately take years to play out.
It might be possible, but it's never been done before so it's likely to be challenged and appealed. Since Republicans have corrupted the supreme court I wouldn't hold my breath that this will work, nor do I expect majorities in both houses to uphold the law when it comes to Trump. It should certainly be attempted regardless.
Is there a chance that he could push the trial back that far? It shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Imagine he gets re-elected and pardons himself. That is going to make the election insanely stressful for everyone.
Last I read the judge overseeing the case was appointed by his disgusting self so it depends on how badly the judge cares about a) being a political puppet b) a 77 year old selfish narcissist that will drop them like a rock at the first sign of any trouble.
Judge Cannon has been shutdown by the 11th circuit over the special master she allowed... basically her bosses said what you requested goes against the constitution and she was thoroughly rebuked... imho she has already played her support for trump card and will have to cross all her t's and dot all her i's or she's done for
Based solely on that quote, I whole heartedly agree. Science fiction is almost always supposed to expose something about our world through a different lens. Whilst it’s not the most elegant example, the two black & white striped races in TOS arguing over “black-white stripes vs white-black stripes” was a clear allegory for racism in our country when the show came out. District 9 is a decent allegory for something like Gaza & Israel: open air prisons and what-not.
Science fiction should (IMO) make the muddy waters of morality more clear.
A more nuanced example comes from Battlestar Galactica; wherein the human members of a concentration camp use suicide bombing as a means of rebellion. The show made sure to imply the efficacy of suicide bombing. It also made sure to expose the arguments against it. But I think during a post 9/11 world, suicide bombing was looked at as the root of all evil. Perpetrators were seen as aimless villains without a cause or reason (without a rational one, anyways). But BSG did make a compelling argument for such extreme cases of terrorist violence when your back is up against the wall.
The bajorans in DS9 also make cases for terrorism as an act of rebellion against colonizers.
I think science fiction is one of the only genres they really take a look at these topics. Other genres seem to only gleam the very tips of the morality iceberg.
I can see the confusing jungle law like frontier justice is a term used for the lawlessness of the wilderness. If tiger is hungry and can overpower you, tiger eats you.
In this case, the labor force rises up like zombies and tears upper management apart, or feeds them into the machines, or beats them with big wrenches, if history tells. They may put it off by hiring strikebusters and police with dogs. The bloodier it starts, the bigger the fire.
theguardian.com
Top