Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.
“I know I support the murder of you and your people. But I’m still going to need you to vote for me, so that I can preserve democracy and the economy. You may not live to see it, but the rest of us will really appreciate it.”
I for one could never vote for a man to be president. Men are just too emotional to serve as leaders. Do you really want some roid-rage dude with his hands on the nuclear button? Please. Men are just too pigheaded, irrational, and obsessed with petty dominance issues to be trusted with real power. They’re like selfish little children. Can you imagine it, a male president? The very idea is laughable! Only someone who knows just how hard it is to birth and raise a child should be trusted with the power to direct the military to take lives. Only women can really grasp the real stakes involved. /s
Sure they have important differences. At the same time however, it is the height of tone-deaf arrogance to expect people to vote for their own genocidal oppressors.
Kamala likely lost Michigan due to her support for Israeli Apartheid and genocide. The Muslim population there quite understandably didn’t want to vote for her. You can’t really come to a group of people and say, “yes, we admit that we’re supporting a genocide of your people, but we need you to still vote for us for the good things we actually will do. We’re going to keep committing genocide against you, but we need you to vote for us for the sake of democracy.”
Trump and Kamala were largely indistinguishable on the Gaza issue. Trump is just a lot ruder about it. Yet, in the months following the election, we’ve seen countless gloating by centrist Democrats openly celebrating further violence by the Israelis, gleefully mocking Palestinians and their supporters, saying that this wouldn’t have happened if Kamala won. Now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Biden, Kamala, and Trump all shared the same policy towards Israel - full and unconditional support with no limits or red lines whatsoever. Gaza was getting wiped off the map no matter who was elected. Notably, despite being still active in politics, to this day, neither Kamala nor Biden have spoken a single word publicly against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza. Even though they’re out of power and have nothing to lose by speaking out, they still fully support the actions of the Israeli government.
Are there still good reasons to have supported Kamala? Sure. But I also don’t expect anyone whose people are being genocided to vote for those other reasons. If you’re not willing to prevent a people from being literally murdered, then you can’t come groveling to those people, asking for their votes. If you don’t care about someone’s life, why should they care about your democracy? This is basic Maslow’s hierarchy of needs shit. People don’t have the luxury of worrying about abstract goods like democracy when their basic material survival is threatened.
Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
They could work to remove the destitution and desperation of working people. But if their workers weren’t in such dire straits, then they wouldn’t have so much power over them. Workers with good pay and a healthy work-life balance also have more time to pursue unionization and other political activities. Even if improving the lives of the people would objectively increase the wealth of the ultra-rich, it would still decrease their power. And ultimately, the only reason people ever obtain that level of wealth is because they desire power more than anything else. People who aren’t power-hungry monsters cash out and retire early long before they reach billionaire status.
Allegation: the DNC exhibited overt favoritism in the primary process to ensure Hillary won the primary.
Your response: but Hillary won the primary, therefore she won the primary!
No one is disputing that she won the primary. The problem was the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the entire process. Hillary was the presumptive nominee from the beginning. People voting for Bernie on day one had to vote against headlines that said, “Hillary is already 1/3 of the way to getting the nomination!” The DNC also collaborated very closely with the Hillary campaign, and they did not do so with Bernie’s campaign. They even went so far as feeding her debate questions ahead of time.
Yes, obviously Hillary actually won the primary even without the superdelegates. Any brain-dead moron can consult wikipedia and see that. There’s no need to parrot the obvious. But you’re completely missing the core of the issue - that Hillary only won the majority of non-superdelegates and only won the primary popular vote because the DNC threw the weight of the entire party behind her nomination at the exclusion of all other candidates.
Ah go shove a pineapple up your ass. A big one.
Trans women experience misogyny. Most transphobia is rooted in misogyny. If you’re subject to misogyny, you should count towards female hiring quotas.
Trans women are biologically women.
When you transition, you in a very literal way change your sex. Chromosomes do very very little for sex differentiation. All a Y chromosome, or specifically the SRY gene, does is tell the gonads to develop into testes. From there on, everything is hormonal. Biological sex is largely determined by hormones, not genetics.
And moreover, very few ever actually have their chromosomes tested. If you think sex is chromosomal, well, you don’t actually know your own sex.
Let’s also legalize hand grenades for defense against home invasion!
I wish for another wishing well.
I’m not a “prepper” in an “underground bunker” sense, but I do prepare for emergencies and instability, whatever form it may take: political, yes, but I also live on several fault lines
Assuming you’re a homeowner, make sure to check if your home insurance policy covers earthquake damage. By default most insurance policies don’t cover seismic.
There any sense on what would be good to stock up on now? When I’ve searched this, the advice is usually pretty worthless. Just advice indistinguishable from general prepper stuff. I’ve seen recommendations to stock up on things like flour, things that the US produces domestically in abundance. But some necessities are going to be more vulnerable to disruptions in shipments from China than others.
Anyone find a good guide or have a sense of what basic household necessities are going to be most vulnerable to disruption of trade with China? I’m not concerned with things like consumer electronics right now, those are luxuries. I’m talking basic food and household staples. I don’t need the standard prepper list that’s meant to prepare you for grave natural disasters. What’s really needed is an analysis of precisely what necessities are most likely to be interrupted by this.
Has anyone seen such a list, or have a sense for what necessities are most vulnerable here?
I mean, if it works, it works. We’ve addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn’t want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn’t want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won’t make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
Worse. This is really a “don’t negotiate with terrorists” situation. Trump could have gone to the Chinese, and any other country, and said, “look, this isn’t working. We need to renegotiate our trade deals.” Public opinion has soured enough on free trade that Trump likely could get some legitimate tariff package or set of new trade deals through. The public generally likes the idea of not trading so much with China. The problem is Trump is trying to do this via decree and blackmail. He thinks that by cutting off trade overnight, he can coerce China into giving the US favorable terms.
But all this shows is that the US is an unreliable partner that is willing to back on its word at any moment. Nations can renegotiate trade deals. That isn’t some unprecedented violation of international norms. But it’s common sense to do these things slowly, giving both nations time to adapt their economies to the new conditions. You can’t just cut this level of trade off cold turkey without causing a global depression.
That’s the policy at most schools. Actually enforcing that in the face of a classroom of kids who don’t respect the rule? That’s a much bigger problem. They’re a lot more clever at sneaking them out than you would think. Moreover, if the phones are just feet from them, their presence is never out of mind. They’re a constant distraction even in a bag. Phone apps are literally designed to be addictive. Imagine if we had a rule that said “crack pipes are fine in your bag. As long as you don’t take them out and smoke in class, you’re fine.” Even if we lived in a world where crack somehow was legal for minors to have, how effective to you think that rule could be enforced?
“Also, may he be abducted by aliens, whisked away to a distant galaxy, and put on permanent display in an alien zoo as an example of the greed of homo sapiens.”
May tomorrow you have an excellent Day of Venus.
MAGA will decide they want to deport Irish-Americans. Ireland will respond by saying they don’t let people claim residency that many generations back. MAGA will piss and moan. Eventually they will make a deal with the UK government. The UK government will build a large prison camp in Northern Ireland, right near the border with the Republic of Ireland. Irish Americans will be banished to the camp, in direct line of site from ROI land, until such time as ROI willingly accepts them in as refugees.