Blackbeard

Blackbeard , 2 days ago

“Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances,” Roberts continued.

Ah, but your sidekicks are free to cozy up with and accept bribes gifts from the very people trying to dismantle our democracy and who have business currently before the court. Very sane, very cool.

Blackbeard , 3 days ago

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on the ICC’s former prosecutor, including revoking visas and blocking property access, for investigating alleged war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan and Israelis in Palestinian territories. The U.S. lifted those penalties in 2021, with Blinken calling them “inappropriate and ineffective” at the time.

Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) earlier this month introduced a bill to sanction the ICC — which targets individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and other international law violations — for investigating and prosecuting U.S. citizens and American allies, including Israel. Calls to pass that measure, or something like it, grew following the court’s announcement, even though the U.S. is not a member of court.

They're telegraphing that they will declare war on the ICC (again) and dismantle whatever's left of international guardrails if Trump wins, much to Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir's delight. One can only imagine the shitshow to follow.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

Straight from the article:

It’s plausible that Biden’s support for Israel’s obliteration of Gaza would be especially outrageous to young and/or nonwhite Americans, who are exceptionally likely to sympathize with Palestine. And the president’s foreign policy has surely alienated some Black, Hispanic, and Arab-American voters under 30. Yet the young and nonwhite voters who’ve been turning on Biden overwhelmingly identify as moderate or conservative, and are presently supporting Trump or RFK Jr., both of whom are even more ardently pro-Israel than the president. Further, a recent poll of 2,000 voters under 30 from the Harvard Institute of Politics found that only 2 percent considered the war in Gaza their top priority. It therefore seems doubtful that Biden’s complicity in Gaza's devastation fully explains his problem with these traditionally Democratic constituencies.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

That's more or less what the article said.

Blackbeard OP , 7 days ago (edited 7 days ago)

Copying this relevant text because it's clear lemmings are going to bury this in knee-jerk downvotes because "muh fee-fees", despite the fact that if they bothered to read past the headline they'd find it actually supports a lot of what they're saying:

Democrats might consider the possibility that keeping younger voters on their side has less to do with the pet issues of activist groups that purport to speak in these voters’ name and more to do with the issues that loom large in these voters’ everyday lives: inflation, health care and housing. These issues, shared with the broader electorate, are the material substrate of the world these generations will inhabit for better or worse. Would a Biden second term address these issues? If so, how? Right now, younger voters are not convinced that another four years would deliver what they want.

And Democrats would also be wise to consider the experience of European countries where right-leaning populist parties have lately been doing especially well among younger voters. Far from repelling these voters, many find the antiestablishment and elite-bashing politics of these new parties attractive, channeling their dissatisfaction with the recent past, the status quo and “politics as usual.”

Edit - For anybody still reading this, if you want to see something really wild, check this:

Go to /r/politics, sort by controversial.

Take a gander at all the leftists complaining that they're burying anti-Biden stories in downvotes.

Then come back here and take a look at how those same leftists respond to posts like this.

Then really try to process the implications of that dichotomy.

Everyone wants an echo chamber.

Literally everyone.

Blackbeard OP , 6 days ago

Self fulfilling prophecy… i do want to downvote this childish crap. It adds nothing and makes you seem unserious.

I don't care. I gave it enough hours to figure out whether anyone would really give it the time of day. It was buried in half a dozen downvotes before a single comment was posted. Whether or not you like my tone is flatly irrelevant, so keep piling on.

Blackbeard OP , 6 days ago

It was buried in half a dozen downvotes before a single comment was posted.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

Wages lagged behind inflation for the 50 years prior, and the gains since March 2023 are not nearly enough to make up for this.

That's very much not true.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

I was drafting a response but I see your edit now. This report seems to echo a lot of what you're saying, but it lays blame with several far more long-term and structural problems. It certainly would be difficult to argue that we're doing as well as we were doing in the post-war boom of the middle 20th century, but that's like saying things are not currently good because they were better in the past. While technically true, it kinda misses the point and distorts the definition of "good."

You're right, but so are the people saying that things are significantly improving. Coincidentally that's exactly what the article is talking about.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

My wife and I are making more money than we ever have before. I got a raise and she got a new job that pays more than her old one. We're solidly on the high side of middle class. Sure, inflation pinched a bit of those gains, and it sucks that new and used cars are so ridiculously expensive, but both of ours are paid off so we'll just keep driving them. It's not all doom and gloom out there right now.

Edit: Downvoted for interrupting the doom loop. Never change, lemmings.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

No, I'm not. You have no idea what our finances looked like just a year ago, but it's clear you also don't care. You've decided you only want evidence that agrees with you.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

How is that in any way a counter argument?

Blackbeard , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

The statistics of this very article are the evidence. It's right there in black and white!

A majority of Americans say that their own personal finances are doing well, and even when the question is expanded to their whole state, voters say the economy has improved.

You countered by dismissing it, so I met you where you wanted to be. But even that wasn't enough to dig you out of your preconceived belief. Carry on with your circle jerk.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

A majority of Americans say that their own personal finances are doing well, and even when the question is expanded to their whole state, voters say the economy has improved.

Then from the source itself:

60% said their financial situation is good or excellent.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-upholds-bidens-15-minimum-wage-recreational-contractors-2024-04-30/

https://www.courthousenews.com/democrats-push-for-17-minimum-wage-by-2028/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/congress-15-dollar-minimum-wage-increase-democrats/index.html

Furthermore, wage growth has been beating inflation for the most recent 12 months.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

Source?

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

Damn, I didn't even realize OP's article was sourcing a 2023 poll. Well here are the updated numbers for 2024:

63% of Americans rate their current financial situation as being "good," including 19% of us who say it's "very good."

Exactly half (50%) say their personal financial situation is excellent or good

U.S. adults scored a 48.92 on our financial well-being scale

This source puts low income consumer confidence at 57.1%

68% of respondents saying the current quality of their financial life is what they expected or better

So overall the numbers haven't changed much since 2023 on how people see their own personal finances. Your point that, despite that, they still think the economy is getting worse just reiterates what the article is saying. For some people their finances are bad and they think things are getting worse. For some people their finances are good ant they think things are getting better. But strangely, for some people their finances are good but they still think things are getting worse. Or, to put it another way, some people think they're in good shape, but the economy is in bad shape, which is a pretty weird disconnect. And the number of people in that last category is not small.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

Point taken. Still, though, the commenter I was replying to seemed to be suggesting stagnant wages and minimum wage both need attention. Despite the fact that the post-Covid wage gain boost seems to be an artifact of a labor market distortion, the rest of my sources show very real and very public pushes for measures that could meaningfully address the stagnation if they were passed into law. If effort is what people are clamoring for, there seems to be no shortage of it. It just seems to me that folks don't like to engage with the actual political realities of our situation, whereby we still need a broad consensus to achieve any legislative movement, and that broad consensus is impossible as long as Republicans share power at the Congressional level. They seem to be blaming Democrats for the fact that Republicans exist and are intransigent.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

I think that’s a fairly subjective interpretation. Is a bill being written and endorsed by part of the party an indication of “real effort”?

I mean, if you're a Congressional representative in a non-leadership position and you can't get past the filibuster, I'd argue drafting a bill to address a problem is just about the best you can do. So yes, I'd argue that's doing a very good job. I don't hold it against the bill drafter that they have to deal with institutional inertia and a multi-party, bicameral federal bureaucracy.

I think the problem is that the DNC leadership’s only qualifier is seniority, so the “progressive” party is being helmed by ancient millionaires who were only really progressive by comparison during the regan era.

I don't disagree, that's a serious problem. It's a bit more complicated than seniority alone, but seniority is still the anchor. But still, the rules are determined by majority vote in conference, and so unless I'm missing something that means a majority of the Democrats in the conference settle on the committee assignment rules each session. That certainly bakes in a significant amount of inertia because the folks already in a position of power retain that power through fluctuations in voter sentiment, but that also means that it would only take a simple majority to completely change those rules. The Senate Caucus leader chooses the Rules Committee which can recommend changes. The House Caucus rules can be modified only by the Speaker, but the Speaker is elected by the full Caucus, so for all intents and purposes a simple majority in either the Senate or the House could change the conference/caucus rules if they chose to. There isn't currently a simple majority in either house that intends to change that rule structure, and so the problem doesn't appear to be that the party is helmed by certain individuals, it's that the party as a whole doesn't intend to change the way they choose their leaders.

I can see your point, but this also ignores the fact that a lot of powerful Democrats are basically center right on the political compass and have been effectively captured by corporate interests, and have been for decades.

I can see why you think that, and at some times I think that as well, but rather than ascribe malevolent intentions to them I prefer to figure out how they got to Congress in the first place. In that regard, the true question is, do those powerful Democrats represent the center of gravity of the voting population that put them there? Or, more simply, is the average Democratic voter centrist or progressive? If the average Democratic voter is centrist, then we could argue that these leaders are simply representing the will of their constituents. If the average Democratic voter is progressive, then we could argue there's some kind of institutional block to that will being reflected in the actions of the Party, which could be reflected in those rules or their inability to change them.

The most recent data I can find is from 2021, and it essentially says that even if we combine "outsider left" with "progressive left", that bloc still only represents 28% of the voting bloc that is Dem/Lean Dem. "Democratic mainstays" and "establishment liberals" represent 51% of the Dem/Lean Dem bloc. Conservatives even make up 6% of that overall bloc, so in this context I'd group them together. If we grant that "stressed sideliners" might also fall into the more left-leaning category, we come to an explanatory break point of 57% that fall from center left to center right, and 42% that fall from left to far left. So in that respect the center of gravity of the party very much is on the moderate end, which would explain the leadership and rule dynamics described above. In short, there are more voters who agree with the moderate wing of the party than who disagree with it.

From the perspective of Lemmy, which leans overwhelmingly left, I can see how that might seem like an institutional or corrupting block of your ideals and intentions, but if we step back from the distorted view we have inside this particular platform, the fact remains that centrist Dems have power because the party itself is centrist. I get how that can feel deeply disappointing, and I get how that 42% might feel marginalized and sidelined, but at the end of the day it's a majority-rules kind of situation, and so until that balance tips in favor of the left wing I don't see that process meaningfully changing. Heck, it could even be argued that if those centrist Dems dramatically altered the rules in favor of a distributive model of power, and if that resulted in a disproportionate increase in the power of the left wing, their voters might be rightly pissed that the party is no longer representing their interests. I can't imagine the next election going very well for them, because those centrists could very easily shift to the right, because they're kinda right to begin with.

The problem, it seems, is with voters, not with the party. Which brings me to your final point:

You could argue that their commitment to third way politics has caused the current political situation where conservatives feel confident enough to be this intransigent in the first place. I personally feel that democratic leadership would rather have someone like Trump in the Whitehouse than someone like Bernie Sanders.

I agree completely. Third way neoliberalism is largely to blame for the state of our unequal and top-heavy economy, and it's deeply imbedded because the conservative coalitions in both parties (in the 80s and 90s) found common ground in greasing the wheels for that economic transition to occur. The stress that system is putting our country under is starting to open up some very large cracks in American society as a whole.

But at the end of the day, the solution to that seems to be to elect more progressive candidates to office so the power balance tips in your favor. Joe Manchin would have no real power if there were about 2-3 more progressive Senators, at which point you could change the committee assignment rules to be more distributive. Same could be said about the centrist House members, but I'm sure the math is a bit steeper just because the House caucus is bigger. But since Senators are elected statewide, they kinda hew centrist by definition because they have to appeal to the whole electorate, so that might be a tall order. The House is where that sentiment would be more readily affected, but we're captured by a conservative judiciary that's decided gerrymandering is totally peachy. That's not helped by the fact that leftists are clustering geographically, which dilutes their voting power even in situations where gerrymandering isn't the main problem. They're quite literally moving away from political races they might be able to win.

Blackbeard , 8 days ago

Right, but the argument is about the democratic party as a whole not the few individuals with no power within the party that are doing a good job.

Which is why the rest of my commentary addressed the party, its leadership structure, and its voters...

I don’t think it’s that complicated. With the two party system the main hurdle is just securing the support of the DNC. Once you’re established the choice is the incumbent or a conservative. So I think most elected officials may have represented their constituents level of progressive ideas at the time they were first elected. So in a party where we claim to be progressives, the elected officials are conserving the status quo of when they were first elected 30 years ago.

I think that's grossly oversimplifying things, to the point where I'm not even sure it's worth investing more effort in a response.

I get that, but I tend to believe American politics has the propensity to have the cart lead the horse. If the cart spent over a decade screaming at the horse that Democrats are the reasonable party, and reasonable people have to make concessions to conservative to make that progress, no matter how unreasonable those conservatives are…then of course a large portion of the constituents will still hold those beliefs in the long run.

I think the problem with arguing against a metaphor is that it's grounded in how you, specifically, see the problem. I simply can't argue against how you see things, nor do I intend to try.

Third way politics was not invented by the democratic constituents, stop the steal was not invented by conservative constituents. The unfortunate reality of America is that most of the people voting are being influenced by the leadership of political parties instead of the political parties being influenced by the constituency.

I give human beings way more credit than that, especially in aggregate. The exact same could be said about you being influenced by some kind of outside group, and I'm sure you'd argue that your beliefs are sincere and informed by evidence and experience. If you're taking the position that your beliefs are legitimate, but everyone else's beliefs are influenced by propaganda, then you and I are seeing the world very differently.

I'm not sure this is worth either of our time anymore. Best of luck.

Blackbeard , 7 days ago

Good one! You really got me there!

🙄🥱

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

You'll find that happens a lot around here. There's a startling amount of myopic reflexiveness in the Lemmy crowd, and they don't like a disagreement with the doom loop, even if it's presented respectfully.

Blackbeard , 10 days ago

Agreed. It's like walking around a party with a post-it note stuck to your forehead that says "Don't ask me about watermelons."

All anyone is going to do all night is ask you about watermelons. Every single time.

Blackbeard , 10 days ago

Arrrgh?

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Make no mistake, Bibi is doing all of this knowing that a Trump victory will give him the carte blanche permission he needs to annex Gaza, and so the political damage this is doing to Biden is just icing on the cake. He has made this much clear by inviting Trump's lackeys to peacock for the Knesset. Friedman isn't alone in thinking that Biden's playing checkers while Bibi is playing chess, but even if Biden made a 180 and took a hard stance against what's happening, two things would be virtually guaranteed:

1. He would be ruthlessly lambasted as an antisemite by the AIPAC-endorsed left and all of the right, and lose the Jewish vote in every swing state, handing the election to Trump in a landslide.

2. Bibi would ignore him just like he ignored the Israeli left, the Supreme Court, and now his own Defense Minister.

This is looking more and more like an Iranian masterclass in subterfuge which began during the Obama years, and which Trump unwittingly supercharged.

---

Edit to Add

This piece really puts a very complicated, multi-decade process into much clearer focus. For anyone who's been flabbergasted at how awful this situation is, and who suspects that there's something deeper and more sinister going on, these are the major points that have been highlighted behind the paywall:

1. Why did Israel/Bibi secretly help fund Hamas for all those years? Because it destabilized Gaza and made a 2-state solution less likely.

2. Why did Hamas act so brazenly if they were so militarily outgunned? If they knew the reaction would be disproportionate? Because they weren't calling the shots, and they were useful pawns for Iran.

3. Why has the reaction been so unreasonably bloodthirsty? Because Bibi is facing possible jail time and knows a strong alliance with the bloodthirsty far-right is his only means to avoid it. Their votes are all that's keeping him a free man.

4. Why does Biden trust Netanyahu so much? Even after his lurch to the right and during a staggering onslaught of civilians? Because he knows AIPAC will sink his reelection if he takes a stand, and the risk of nuclear war will rise considerably if he loses.

5. Why has Netanyahu flatly refused to negotiate with Abbas and the Fatah-led PA? Why does there seem to be no "what's next" plan? Because the far-right wants to annex Gaza, not coexist with the Palestinians. The Supreme Court tried to get them to stop the annexation of the West Bank, and Bibi's far-right coalition neutered the Court in response.

6. Why are US politicians so blind to all of this? Many of them are too old to have seen the ground shift beneath them, and don't see the Israel you and I see.

7. Why is Netanyahu kissing Trump's ass? Because Iran is days/weeks away from becoming a nuclear power, and he thinks Trump is willing to nuke them to stop it.

None of this timeline could play out if Bibi willingly negotiated a post-Hamas ruling coalition. He won't stop the onslaught because his far-right cohorts have already decided that the end game is complete annexation of disputed territory, and Iran has forced them into that corner because they knew Bibi's coalition was dumb enough to go full bore. This ends with complete isolation of Israel on the world's stage one way or another, and all Iran had to do was fund a small band of murderous ideologues for a few decades to set the stage for a final showdown.

We are weeks/months away from a nuclear standoff in the middle east.

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago

My friend, I wish I knew. The more I learn about this timeline, the darker our future becomes. There's a reason Putin, Bibi, and the Ayatollah all have their pedals to the metal right now, and it's not because they sense that America is on the up and up.

If what seems likely comes to pass, by next January Project 2025 will begin the wholesale dismantling of our federal bureaucracy, Republicans will hold the Senate, Trump will lay out the red carpet for Putin to attack NATO by refusing to honor Article 5, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will orchestrate their successors, abortion will be banned at 12 weeks nationwide, Obergefell will be overturned, and future US elections will not run the way they've been run before. If we have a legitimate chance of winning the Oval Office in 2028, I'll be absolutely shocked. None of this is outlandish or far-fetched, and people have bragged openly about most of it.

For what it's worth, the far left is absolutely correct. It's a genocide, and we're complicit. We've funded too many genocides in the past for this to be ok in any way, shape, or form. But also, the center-left is absolutely correct. It's a multi-polar world now, and Bibi already has the blank check he needs. If Biden backs down, he'll be slaughtered at the polls. What comes after will absolutely be worse.

One of the reasons Hitler was able to do what he did was that the far-left KPD turned on the center-left SPD under the banner of "anti-fascism". The SPD tried to unify with the KPD after the elections of 1930, but the deal was rejected. The KPD routinely got about 10% of the German vote in the Weimar Republic. In 1933 the Nazis came to power and banned the KPD on day one. Then they blamed the KPD for the Reichstag fire, and suspended civil liberties in response. The Weimar Republic collapsed, and the rest is history.

If the far left and the center left can't find commonality under a shared vision for the future, I think we're all about to be fed to the wolves.

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago

Yep, so now you see why he's not budging. He loses either way. My guess is he's trying to thread the needle by counting on the Jewish, pro-Israel voting block being more valuable (i.e. larger) than the pro-Palestine left wing. Could also be that he knows Trump presents an existential crisis not just for everyone on the left, but also for many center-right voters who are already talking about swinging for Biden. He might (or might not) have good reason to. More likely, I think, he's counting on the fact that young people care more about Gaza than old people, and young people consistently have the lowest turnout of any age group. It's a hedge, to be sure, but apparently one they think they have to make.

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago

I didn't say it was fair or good. Just that this is the situation we find ourselves in.

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago

If I were presented with a choice to murder a child to avoid 100% certain nuclear Armageddon, I would murder the child. If I were presented with a choice to murder a child to avoid 1% certain nuclear Armageddon, I probably wouldn't. Where the rest of us fall between those extremes is up for debate, and it seems to me like that's how the administration is rationalizing it. Apparently to them the stakes (for the whole world) are just too high to change course.

Blackbeard OP , 10 days ago

Ok.

Blackbeard OP , 9 days ago

I'm sure his administration is rushing around like lunatics to try to orchestrate something behind the scenes. They know their shortest path to victory is being able to say "Look! We brokered a cease fire! We ended the war!" But they know they can't throttle back one iota until that becomes a reality. He temporarily paused a bomb shipment and the media piled all over his ass in a chorus with Republicans (and some Democrats). Suddenly he was "helping Hamas". I think that's the true poison pill of his whole debacle. If he does anything other than full-throated support, he will be labeled an antisemite and also an ally to terrorists because the media is largely feckless and naive and can be led around by the nose. The right wing mediasphere is practically salivating at the prospect of Biden giving them a potent attack angle.

I hope he finds the goldilocks zone soon, but I'm afraid it's vanishingly small and shrinking every day.

Blackbeard OP , 9 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

I cited those sources specifically to show what his enemies will flood the airwaves with if he changes course. Their bias is exactly the problem I'm illuminating.

Blackbeard OP , 8 days ago

"Don't worry about the media that helped orchestrate this in swing states across the nation."

Staggering strategic genius right there.

Blackbeard , 11 days ago

Reposting from this comment because it bears repeating:

Only one of my ten Nazi friends saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect. This was Hildebrandt, the teacher. And even he then believed, and still believes, in part of its program and practice, “the democratic part.” **The other nine, decent, hard-working, ordinarily intelligent and honest men, did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now. None of them ever knew, or now knows, Nazism as we knew and know it; and they lived under it, served it, and, indeed, made it. **

As we know Nazism, it was a naked, total tyranny which degraded its adherents and enslaved its opponents and adherents alike; terrorism and terror in daily life, private and public; brute personal and mob injustice at every level of association; a flank attack upon God and a frontal attack upon the worth of the human person and the rights which that worth implies. These nine ordinary Germans knew it absolutely otherwise, and they still know it otherwise. If our view of National Socialism is a little simple, so is theirs. An autocracy? Yes, of course, an autocracy, as in the fabled days of “the golden time” our parents knew. But a tyranny, as you Americans use the term? Nonsense.

When I asked Herr Wedekind, the baker, why he had believed in National Socialism, he said, “Because it promised to solve the unemployment problem. And it did. But I never imagined what it would lead to. Nobody did.” I thought I had struck pay dirt, and I said, “What do you mean, ‘what it would lead to,’ Herr Wedekind?” “War,” he said. “Nobody ever imagined it would lead to war.”

The evil of National Socialism began on September 1, 1939; and that was my friend the baker.

Remember—none of these nine Germans had ever traveled abroad (except in war); none had ever known or talked with a foreigner or read the foreign press; none ever wanted to listen to the foreign radio when it was legal to do so, and none (except, oddly enough, the policeman) listened to it when it was illegal. They were as uninterested in the outside world as their contemporaries in France—or America. None of them ever heard anything bad about the Nazi regime except, as they believed, from Germany’s enemies, and Germany’s enemies were theirs. “Everything the Russians and the Americans said about us,” said Cabinetmaker Klingelhöfer, “they now say about each other.”

Men think first of the lives they lead and the things they see; and not, among the things they see, of the extraordinary sights, but of the sights which meet them in their daily rounds. The lives of my nine friends—and even of the tenth, the teacher—were lightened and brightened by National Socialism as they knew it. And they look back at it now—nine of them, certainly—as the best time of their lives; for what are men’s lives? There were jobs and job security, summer camps for the children and the Hitler Jugend to keep them off the streets. What does a mother want to know? She wants to know where her children are, and with whom, and what they are doing. In those days she knew or thought she did; what difference does it make? So things went better at home, and when things go better at home, and on the job, what more does a husband and father want to know? The best time of their lives.

There were wonderful ten-dollar holiday trips for the family in the “Strength through Joy” program, to Norway in the summer and Spain in the winter, for people who had never dreamed of a real holiday trip at home or abroad. And in Kronenberg “nobody” (nobody my friends knew) went cold, nobody went hungry, nobody went ill and uncared for. For whom do men know? They know people of their own neighborhood, of their own station and occupation, of their own political (or nonpolitical) views, of their own religion and race. All the blessings of the New Order, advertised everywhere, reached “everybody.”

There were horrors, too, but these were advertised nowhere, reached “nobody.” Once in a while (and only once in a while) a single crusading or sensation-mongering newspaper in America exposes the inhuman conditions of the local county jail; but none of my friends had ever read such a newspaper when there were such in Germany (far fewer there than here), and now there were none. None of the horrors impinged upon the day-to-day lives of my ten friends or was ever called to their attention. There was “some sort of trouble” on the streets of Kronenberg as one or another of my friends was passing by on a couple of occasions, but the police dispersed the crowd and there was nothing in the local paper. You and I leave “some sort of trouble on the streets” to the police; so did my friends in Kronenberg.

• They Thought They Were Free- The Germans, 1933-45

Blackbeard , 11 days ago

"Yes, yes. Carry on." - Samuel Alito

"My new TRUMP Motorcoach is really the talk of the town. Please don't call it an RV." - Clarence Thomas

"I've found some very strange lint in my navel." - John Roberts

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

What would you like for them to have done over the past year+ that would have been possible with a GOP-controlled House?

Blackbeard , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

False:

In 2021, Democrats pushed, and in some cases passed, bills to enact sweeping drug price reforms, permanently extend Obamacare subsidies and expand Medicaid in the 12 holdout states that have refused to do so, and pour hundreds of billions into home health care for the elderly and people with disabilities and add dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare.

edit: Here's more stuff negotiated by Democrats recently, if you care. (I suspect you don't)

Blackbeard , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

Here's a list.

And some more:

https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/news-chairman-sanders-releases-new-report-showing-major-nonprofit-hospital-systems-exploiting-tax-breaks-and-prioritizing-ceo-pay-over-helping-patients-afford-medical-care

https://pressley.house.gov/2024/02/22/pressley-dwc-lead-150-democrats-in-demanding-health-insurers-fully-cover-birth-control-as-required-by-the-aca/

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/fact-sheet-democrats-drug-price-setting-scheme-dismantles-medicares-promise-undermines-seniors-health

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/lgbtq-health-care-biden-administration-rules-affordable-care-act/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-daca-healthcare-coverage-new-rule-rcna150473

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/biden-health-care-task-force-inflation-00144713

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/05/20/dental-care-insurance-costs-too-much-aca-rule/73766660007/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/politics/biden-health-care-costs/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/biden-insurance-short-term-junk-ff056e344b44d5524210607e4810a191

All since the GOP took over the House.

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/news-chairman-sanders-releases-new-report-showing-major-nonprofit-hospital-systems-exploiting-tax-breaks-and-prioritizing-ceo-pay-over-helping-patients-afford-medical-care

https://pressley.house.gov/2024/02/22/pressley-dwc-lead-150-democrats-in-demanding-health-insurers-fully-cover-birth-control-as-required-by-the-aca/

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/fact-sheet-democrats-drug-price-setting-scheme-dismantles-medicares-promise-undermines-seniors-health

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/lgbtq-health-care-biden-administration-rules-affordable-care-act/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/biden-daca-healthcare-coverage-new-rule-rcna150473

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/biden-health-care-task-force-inflation-00144713

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/05/20/dental-care-insurance-costs-too-much-aca-rule/73766660007/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/politics/biden-health-care-costs/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/biden-insurance-short-term-junk-ff056e344b44d5524210607e4810a191

All since the GOP took over the House.

Blackbeard , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

I hear you, but this article makes clear in a way that no others have that the decision to put them in time out must be made by Congress, not Biden. Most of the transfers he's "approving" throughout this war, were mandated years ago.

Blackbeard , 16 days ago

State Department approval also means a possible result is “State Department rejection”.

Did you notice that he said it would be illegal to send bombs to them if they're being used on civilians? That's because rejection because they "can't be trusted" isn't a thing that can happen. It must be a violation of the statue that was passed to mandate the shipment, or some other law. His DoD needs rock solid legal grounds to refuse a Congressional mandate, and the clearest reason to disobey statue is to show that it requires that you violate some other law.

Blackbeard , 17 days ago

That study looked into 62 elections in ten countries since 1952. I'm sure people said the debates helped them make up their minds, but the statistical evidence doesn't bear that out.

Blackbeard , 17 days ago

Oh...you're one of those.

Blackbeard , 16 days ago

You may be correct, but if we still have free and fair elections in 2028 (I have my doubts), and if we have 2 brand new candidates, the demand for a debate will be higher. I just don't think anyone wants to hear from these two men, in particular, because we've already heard everything they have to say.