We don’t get to decide who the Dem nominee is when the current President is a Dem who will be running again.
What we can do is urge our representatives to pass legislation enacting ranked-choice or STAR voting, which would cause the parties to put up better candidates as their nominees if they want a chance of winning.
Unfortunately, the chance of the nominee being anyone else is pretty slim, short of Biden having a sudden and severe medical issue. You can lodge a vote for one of his challengers in the primary, but it's little more than a protest vote - not that that should discourage you, but looking at it realistically. Most of the theoretical candidates being put forward to replace Biden have the very, very small issue of not actually running in this election, and that's kind of a pre-requisite to win an election.
Yeah. I looked up who Biden's challengers are for the nomination, and the productive impact of voting for either of them, I think, is 0.
Ezra Klein's article (posted interestingly enough by a user I'm fairly well convinced is a total troll/shill) had a big part in convincing me, and he listed plenty of Democratic "talent", but none of them really seemed all that compelling in terms of maybe being president. Maybe Gavin Newsom.
Gretchen Whitmer, Wes Moore, Jared Polis, Gavin Newsom, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, Cory Booker, Ro Khanna, Pete Buttigieg, Gina Raimondo, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chris Murphy, Andy Beshear, J.B. Pritzker
But Neal Katyal, a prominent lawyer who has argued cases before the top court, predicted on X (formerly Twitter) that it will not take up the case.
"Trump's argument is so weak and the Court of Appeals decision so thorough and well done, I can see SCOTUS voting not to hear it," he wrote.
Legal analysts said the methodical nature of the appeals ruling, laid out over 57 pages that are dense with court citations and historical references, sent a clear message.
"What the Court of Appeals said, very politely and very dryly, is 'You're not even close, Trump'. None of these arguments pass the laugh test," Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor, told BBC News.
I stumbled across this and I found it particularly interesting that 93 years ago the GOP was being called out for their use of this myth. It is one the GOP has continued to rely heavily on, especially in modern times. It is also interesting that this myth almost never benefited the real frontierspeople, but rather the rich industrialists from the East and Europe. I was hooked after the first paragraph,
There is no more persistent myth in American history than the myth that rugged individualism is or has been the way of American life. Many influences have entered into the creation of this myth, but the man who is chiefly responsible for its general acceptance is Frederick Jackson Turner, who, in 1893, when the western states were loud in their demands for national regulation of industry, said in his now famous Chicago address that the American frontier had promoted democracy—a democracy “‘strong in selfishness and individualism, intolerant of experience and education, and pressing individual liberty beyond its proper bounds.” Its tendency, he said, was anti-social. “It produced antipathy to control, and particularly to any direct control.” It permitted “lax business honor, inflated paper currency and wildcat banking.”*
Sure sounds like not much has changed other than the scale of the belief in this myth.
I find the wording of that a little... strange? "The man chiefly responsible for [the myth's] acceptance" sure sounds like he was warning of all of the dangers that came with it. I wouldn't say he was promoting acceptance of such a culture.
Or am I misreading that? Are they saying Turner was wrong, that such an individualistic streak in American life (then and/or now) is fictional, not actually present?
I don't think we'll know until the Grand Jury comes up with a verdict. I think the likelihood that it's Jan 6 related is high though, given what we know about current ongoing investigations.
Well… yes and no. This is from the house. The clown show is currently in charge of the house. So this could very well be some bullshit wild goose chase that Gym Jordan wanted to kick off as some sort of distraction.
Americans had better hope the courts rule in favor of the Biden administration. A ruling for the plaintiffs would be one of the biggest judicial power grabs in American history and trigger a constitutional crisis.
I am pretty sure this is not the way it was written in the original filing. Apart from that some clarifications are given in the sentences that follow the first one, the one quoted.
edit: found the following and thought of sharing .
Plaintiffs, representing Palestinian human rights organizations and individuals, sue the US Government under international human rights law for its failure to exercise influence over Israel to prevent genocide.
The MTD is one of the first things that a judge needs to decide, and it was argued by the government at that hearing:
It is not the court’s role to sit in judgment of U.S. foreign policy decisions concerning the conflict in Gaza or to assess whether Israel has transgressed limits imposed by international law
Right after that quote in the article, you can find a link to the full MTD.
The MTD is one of the first things that a judge needs to decide
That makes sense.
It's just that the way your initial comment was:
The Friday hearing was about the government’s motion to dismiss
made me think that this was the only thing discussed.
So briefly, on Friday started the hearings of the case Defense for Children International-Palestine v. Biden, and Biden's defense lawyer said their piece, which was -at least in part- their MTD.
(I haven't watched all the videos yet. Will do to have a better understanding of the case.)
Here are the provisional measures the court has made:
Israel must take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal - killing members of a group, causing bodily harm, inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group, preventing births
Israel must ensure its military does not commit any genocidal acts
Israel must prevent and punish any public comments that could be considered incitement to commit genocide in Gaza
Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access
Israel must prevent any destruction of evidence that could be used in a genocide case
Israel must submit a report to the court within one moth of this order being given
The court also expressed grave concern about the fate of hostages being held by Hamas and called for their immediate release.
No call for an immediate ceasefire, which is what S. Africa was asking for.
Lavrov is definitely holding the Russia position. Nothing surprising about that.
Personally I posted this q&a here because it also shows what the journalists of global mass media ask him at this point in time. Taking into concideration your comment, it looks like I need to clarify that I do not support Putin's politics.
This is the kind of article that piques my suspicion. It tends towards sensationalism, e.g.:
'For over two decades now, Americans have been battered by non-stop crises at home and abroad...'
Have we been 'battered' ? Have the crisis really been non-stop? Fox news/cable outlets tell us we have, but what's driving their agenda.
And what is the source of this article? Some partisan conservative think-tank guy who isn't particularly insightful, even as far as this type of writing goes.
This moment may be fraught, but imagine living through the period from JFK's assassination to Watergate. That period must have felt like it was all crumbling.
I mean, we had 9/11, the War on Terror, the 2008 financial crisis, the entire Trump presidency, various natural disasters, COVID-19, an incessant housing crisis, and the economic problems that followed the pandemic (such as inflation). I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the United States has been battered by a full barrage of crises and disasters since the start of the century, with the exception of a few years of relative stability in between. The kind of privilege it would require to have been able to live through the past twenty years without feeling battered is hard for me to fathom.
Respectfully, I will disagree. 2009 was a tough year and 2020/21 was pretty apocalyptic but day to day life didn't feel as described in this opinion piece (to me at least). I spent much of that period installing irrigation systems and getting by on temp jobs, it wasn't cake, but it wasn't tumbleweeds adrift in a hellish nightmare-scape either.
I guess what compels me to bother disagreeing is the author is such a fraud, telling us how the last twenty years he spent at 'think-tanks' with catered lunch, and in academia (which is about as far removed from reality as can be) have been just oh-so-awful.
The last twenty years in Russia, Venezuela, etc., the argument is compelling, but in the U.S., I just don't agree.
That's fair. Comparing the United States to third-world countries to invalidate the argument that we have experienced a series of crises is fallacious, however ("fallacy of relative privation", a form of red herring fallacy).
Politics
Newest