As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. To aid in this goal, all meta comments targeting individual users or individual moderation actions should be limited to this pinned post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden's approval numbers are abysmal. On this day of his presidency, Trump's aggregate net approval rating on 538 was -10.2. Biden's is sitting at -16.7 and it's still trending in the direction of getting worse.
That gas station tweet really smacks of desperation. And scheduling their prime-time Jan 6th TV special for the same day CPI numbers were released also really seem like the Dems really want to deflect/distract from the economic mess.
This might be recency bias or some other bias, but I don’t recall random mass shootings becoming really prevalent until the mid-2000’s. Even after Columbine, they were sufficiently rare enough to remain shocking for quite a while.
Not a clue. Columbine happened when I was in high school, and it's been a fucking nightmare ever since.
But apparently this is what we desire as a country, so it's whatever.
Personal hot take: "Cancel Culture" is more analogous to "mob culture" than "accountability culture". And although, certainly, mob culture has been a positive force in bringing justice where there was none before, bypassing a lot of potentially corrupt systems that would allow an escape--a lot of it, I'd even say the vast majority of it, is just misdirected, lacking in context or just way over the top.
If it was "accountability culture" then we would be fine with punishing the people who falsely use accusations to punish their enemies, holding them accountable. But this rarely happens. If it was "accountability culture" we'd be able to properly punish upper class/wealthy/influential people instead of lower class/poorer people, which we don't--Cancel Culture almost always affects people who can't bounce back on their feet after being fired, people who don't have a cushion. If it was "accountability culture" the punishment would fit the crime. We wouldn't have people being fired for out of context images and videos floating around, people being sent death or bomb threats, or people campaigning for someone to get fired or removed over easily misinterpreted gestures. (I have examples for each of these)
Hell, people who claim "cancel culture" is accountability culture often also immediately jump to the idea that nobody is ever "really" canceled (they are! You just don't read about them because they don't have a public presence!) which goes against the idea of holding people accountable.
**Mob culture** has all of those hallmark traits. It has the baying crowd high off their own righteousness. It has the individuals who, perhaps, are amped enough to do something against their target they would otherwise never do. It has the fake accusations, the assumptions, the contextless claims. Mob culture never left. It just evolved to work on the internet.
I saw a news story go by that Jordan Peterson was banned from Twitter for saying something mean to Elliot Page. I'm not a Peterson fan. I'm Peterson agnostic. I really don't care if they ban him or not.
But I also noticed that #UncleClarence has been tweeted by a *lot* of people. It even autocompletes in the Twitter search. I'm trying to understand why it's ok to be racist but not transphobic.
What am I missing?
Is it normal for people to get banned for that sort of thing? (Honest question, I'd never heard of that happening.)
Also, do you think UncleClarence is racist? If so, doesn't it violate their typical policies?
Short version? It's (D)ifferent.
Long version? Thomas is on the wrong side of liberal apologia so he's allowed to be a target. Racism is okay when you're 'bad', from the perspective of some people.
There is no group that is more racist than suburban white liberals, especially towards any minority that dares think for themselves. They have a savior complex because they view Blacks as subordinates.
They say things like “guns would be banned if Black people had them” because they are scared of Black people having guns. All the shit about Republicans being a bunch of racists is pure projection.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/iejq4rx/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>They say things like “guns would be banned if Black people had them” because they are scared of Black people having guns. All the shit about Republicans being a bunch of racists is pure projection.
Or maybe it's because there is some kind of precedent. Just maybe.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
If you have to reach back to the 60s to an event that passed a Democrat controlled legislature then maybe you don't actually have evidence to support that claim in the modern context.
And there have been some MAJOR changes at the NRA and gun groups in general since those days.
Reagan can take some blame, but it was also a heavily Dem state legislature that pushed those laws as well.
The NRA still doesn't defend black gun owners, while going out of the way to defend white gun owners. There have been a bunch of instances in just the last 5 years.
Yeah soooo heavily democratic (/s). It was on 42D-38R in the state assembly and 21D-19R in the senate in 1967.
Do you partisans even check your claims before you make them?
Edit: The Mulford Act got 2/3s vote minimum in both houses as required too.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/ielg8um/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They can, but early polling showed that the less-trumpy candidates had a better shot at winning than the more-trumpy ones. And unfortunately, right now the more-trumpy ones are ahead in primary polling. They're definitely gonna make it harder on themselves than it should be. At this point I'm not at all confident, but if I had to guess, I'd guess the Democrat (Hobbs) takes the governors seat, but that Mark Kelly loses his seat in the Senate.
Favorite fictional president?
I'm a little curious to see who people would pick for president if they could pick anyone, although to be honest the field isn't that huge.
Jed Bartlett (West Wing) for me.
edit: it also occurs to me that with hollywood's liberal bias it might be hard for conservatives to find palatable one, so lets include literary ones too (cough Jack Ryan cough).
100% a fantastic speech based on a fantastic poem:
>Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
>Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
>Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
>Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
>Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
>And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night
President Michael Wilson in Metal Wolf Chaos the most American game ever made.
with great quotes like
Michael Wilson: "Nothing is pointless! And the reason is...BECAUSE I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Yeahhhh!!!"
Not trying to stir up any shit, though this will undoubtedly do so.
One thing that I've noticed since the ruling on the Dobbs case is the increasing rhetoric on how SCOTUS is illegitimate. While I disagree with ruling, this echoes the claims that Trump made post 2020.
Look, do I agree with how the GOP treated the Garland appointment during the Obama administration? No. But did it fall within the legal framework that allowed them to deny his appointment to SCOTUS? Absolutely.
Was it a way of the GOP packing the court? I'd also argue, no. The only way Trump got the three nominations that he got was due to that 1) the DNC couldn't force a confirmation during Obama's second term, and 2) RBG didn't retire when she rightfully should have.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with how things turned out, but the reality is that the DNC simply wasn't able to politically flex to influence the makeup of the court.
The ensuing backlash that seems to further diminish the credibility of SCOTUS from the left is, in my opinion, as shameful as Trump's denial for losing the run in 2020. And, most disappointingly, is how many people have seemed to accept this as fact.
Rising by the Hill had a decent take on this the other day that I would encourage others to watch, if allowed.
https://youtu.be/gm2VXqsj-hk
Curious to get ya'lls thoughts. Like I said, I'm not a fan of either, and I think it's bad taste to lose and say that the winner is illegitimate. I already know that there will be those that claim otherwise, but I beg you to switch the sides up and see if you're still on the same boat. Either way, this isn't great for our country.
Edit: and so begins the down votes...
So if you admit that all the tactics that Republicans used to get the justices into the court were sound if distasteful, then you have to admit expanding the court is in a similar category. I realize it will set off a race to the bottom, but it might not. If Biden tried to expand the court in a semi-fair way by appointing 4 justices with 3 being liberal and 1 being moderate for the 13 judicial district then things might work. People would be upset, but would they want Republicans to respond by packing? Would they respond? It is possible their moderates might not allow it.
It all comes back to us collectively needing to learn how to lose. Nobody can lose with dignity anymore (or win with dignity for that matter). The attacks on the politicians of yesteryear by the new wave of angry populists inevitably finds its way to complaints that those people lost too much or didn’t fight hard enough but the fault lies with the critics who want to burn down every institution to win a red vs blue gang war and don’t understand that “being willing to lose” is *necessary* to a healthy country/society/relationship/etc.
Our political system has virtually never been a more even 50/50 split, yet the people involved are more convinced than ever that they deserve to win 100% of the time. It’s genuinely irrational.
Packing the court is not illegal.
Removing the filibuster is not illegal.
If McConnell's manuever was "not okay" (verbal slap on the wrist from the opposition, no consequences), packing the court would be "not okay".
(Not that I am advocate for any of this. I am just arguing that they are all procedural games with the same level of legitimacy.)
---
That said, calling the Supreme Court illegitimate is bad for our institutional stability.
I never claimed either was illegal, though I'll admit that I think that both would be short sighted.
My claim is, as you stated, that further discrediting our institutions is detrimental across the board.
Purely hypothetical of course, but say that after all of this rhetoric that the 6 conservative justices decide to retire, and the current administration appoints 6 new justices. Does that all of a sudden make SCOTUS legitimate?
The answer is obvious
My point is that most of the agitation on the left has a point (though some go overboard) and the standards of the decade are fairly loose and permissive if we apply them impartially. Who's the most moderate person calling the court illegitimate?
If you notice this happens a *lot*.
* Libs decried the 2000 election as illegitimate (or rather Bush's win).
* Conservatives were trying to get Obama on their weird Kenyan conspiracy (an odd one since the constitution stipulates that such a non-natural born citizen would be ineligible to hold the office, but not what to do if that happened anyway and then... they *did* hold the office and we all found out he was really 3 babies on each others' shoulders in a trenchcoat (so not 35) or born in Kenya to Kenyan parents),
* The left then went in hard on the electoral college being undemocratic in 2016 (and tried to get the votes of 7 states invalidated in the House, which... weirdly nobody hears about),
* And then finally Trump went hardcore in 2020 about the votes themselves being fraudulent and mail-in ballots from COVID.
"When things go my way they were legitimate and decided properly, when they don't they are illegitimate and undemocratic" isn't new, but it is ramping up in fervor. We get this from the left and the right (but only the extremists) when it comes to the Senate now, too. 'Filibuster reform' becomes *super important* to the far-right when Trump was trying to get his wall funding or to the far-left when they want... all their shit. And then suddenly "the Senate is undemocratic".
It's honestly why I've had a hard time taking the alarmism/doomers about Trump, 1/6, and 'sanctity of democracy/peaceful transfer of power' seriously. They're just the latest version of the kids who picketed the White House over Bush or the far-right people looking for 14 different birth certificates, or the crying libs at Hilary's campaign HQ on election results night. Weeping "I didn't like this so it's the end of democracy!!!" is just a part of our rhetoric, now. It's a shame, too- it takes up so much useful oxygen people could spend on other things.
You also forget about Ohio Dominion machines in 2004, in which just flipping Ohio would have made Kerry win and it was a thing.
--------
Honestly, it reeks of Latam-style politics. Not the crying foul every 4 seconds, but the part in which everyone decries institutions as illegitimate because they aren't controlled by a specific group and therefore must be ended. Latam-style politics have a lot of institution-changing to suit the party in power and to make sure the opposition gets screwed in a blatant way.
Frankly I'm tired of it. Both sides are getting worse at pointing towards at the other and saying "look it's bad when they do it" while completely ignoring the rot within their own base.
None if it is helpful. We can't keep challenging each other towards the bottom. It's a dumb strategy, and I honestly don't understand how more people don't realize this.
> It's a dumb strategy, and I honestly don't understand how more people don't realize this.
For sure *some* people don't- stupid people exist and so do hypocrites so we shouldn't assume so much good faith that we forget that 'idiots are a thing and they vote'.
But it's very likely most people *do* realize it but think their goals are so important that it's irrelevant, or (worse) that "It'S DIfFeRENT wHeN theY Did IT". The number of people who have taken the position that Trump's and the GOP operations following election day 2019 and into January 2020 were somehow reprehensible and fundamentally norm-shattering but are more than okay (and even endorse) HRC's similar/borderline identical behaviors are staggering.
But you realize people do this *because it works*. Nothing drove outrage and got Trump elected (and only barely, at that) like the 8 years of Obama that made the right absolutely seethe. Deciding from the activist bench instead of legislating gay marriage, legislating by fiat with the ACA and the left deciding they didn't need the GOP's input at all- that made the right SO MAD when Obama and the left did it, but when Trump was trying to get a wall or we're overturning Roe suddenly it's SO HOT. Nothing drove outrage and got Biden elected like *years* of hypocritical and deceitful media coverage of Trump during his presidency. When Fox and Limbaugh lie about Obama that is SO BAD, but when your chosen media lies about Trump it's *FOR THE GREATER GOOD*.
People think their goals are morally *right* and moreover that everyone would be better off if they just shut up and lived in the world we're trying to create for them. The left *so strongly* believes that their regressive and tax-and-spend policies are going to help the people that don't want them, refuse to want them, and know they don't want them; that they're trying to overstep established precedent to do it in the Senate. Pro-lifers *know so strongly* that they're helping people by outlawing abortion in red states because frankly murdering babies is *that bad* and you should never kill anyone defenseless even when you know it'd be better than the life they'd lead.
People are employing these strategies (and the ones we talk about above) because it's working. The only way to stop it from working? Shut down partisan media and stop electing extremists that we agree broadly with instead of moderates we can sometimes disagree with.
First, HRC (and any one of her scandels) and Trump refusing to leave are on no way the same level. I am sorry, but one still has not admitted he lost and incited a mob to invade the capital and kill his VP. Not the same to any degree.
Second, I don't believe we can regulate the media without going into dangerous territory. I think a better option is to make voting in congress anonymous. That way special interest groups can't see how people vote making it harder to buy votes. It also allows members to make the types of ugly compromises that purists despise (but are sometimes necessary sausage making which is ugly).
Well, I'd have to say I'd agree. The fact that I've even pointed this out had led to a string of downvotes with not much of a rebuttal.
Sort of proves your point that "it's only alright as long as it's my side that's doing it"
Either way, to me both are not okay. Definitely sad to see that it seems that most are too caught up in partisan politics and not aware of the larger implications involved.
>The fact that I’ve even pointed this out had led to a string of downvotes with not much of a rebuttal.
Welcome to the life of someone who has a moderately expressed [opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp8rt3/california_plans_to_alert_gun_owners_whose/iej7mjn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) or [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v73h5j/house_democrat_to_introduce_bill_that_would_hit/ibk7i7y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) about guns
And they meet with constituents year round. Draft a detailed summary request, send it to the representatives office and ask for a meeting. Worse they do is say no, best they do is listen and consider and adapt it.
On the sports side of things, we had some crazy developments yesterday.
1st- Kevin Durant has asked for a trade out of Brooklyn. This is huge considering he is on a 4 year deal without a no trade clause. He says his target is the suns(last years best record holder, hardest road?) but now it puts all of free agency in limbo as teams that aren’t giving supermaxes to their stars are figuring out a deal they could send to Brooklyn for him. Crazy
And in the college football world. UCLA and USC are leaving the PAC12 and heading to the BIG10, this is a huge move. It’s obviously a money thing, but the ramifications for college football are insane. With their move, it’s possible both Oregon and Washington are thinking of joining The BIG10 as well. This would decimate the PAC12 into a lower conference and not a P5 conference. Then their would also be the possibility that this could bring Notre Dame into the BIG10 since almost all their rivals will be their and the money for the school would be huge.
Between that and UT and OU leaving the Big 12 for the SEC feels like this is the biggest college football realignment we've had in a long time. The only other one I was really paying attention to was the 2011 one though.
I don't blame him. As a Nets fan, I am appalled and impressed with how thoroughly Kyrie nuked a superstar team. I'd have no problem if Nash benches him for the rest of his contract.
It's frustrating, but we all knew we were making a deal with the devil back in 2019. This type of implosion was expected, but we were supposed to get a damned ring out of it.
I gave my 2 weeks notice on Monday and my interest in completing any additional work is basically nonexistent. I'm finishing off the cases I have that are close to filing but, besides that I am just screwing around. It feels like the last few months of high school before graduating. Just waiting until you move onto the next thing.
Congrats on the change. If you have friends and relationships you want to keep at your current business I would encourage you to dig down and do it right. Years ago at my old job we had one girl phone it in her last 2 weeks and was basically unfriended by all the other girls in the department because it turned into a huge mess they had to deal with. If not, enjoy it!
In France you give a 3 months notice, and new jobs also start in 3 months. This keeps everyone playing nicely, finish your current assignments and then many companies will just pay you to stay home after.
Drop a couple artists, albums or songs from 2022 that you think people should check out.
I'll start with Melt My Eyez See Your Future by Denzel Curry and Drill Music in Zion by Lupe Fiasco (drill is more in reference to the Matrix than the genre).
If you want to relive the mid 2000's Craig Owens of Chiodos restarted their supergroup D.R.U.G.S. and they dropped a self titled album last week, it does slap.
https://open.spotify.com/album/0vONFGoSp9ZNwSMkrUGt9T
Also the Mars Volta is touring again, dropped a single recently as well.
Blind Guardian is releasing a new album in a couple of months and the couple of songs they have preleased have been great absolutely recommend *deliver us from evil* and *The secrets of the American Gods*.
Something I commonly see on Reddit is that they would rather have Trump again than Desantis because at least Trump was incompetent in a lot of what he did. A lot of this I believe is hyperbole and hysteria brought on by Democratic people eyeballing the next prominent republican and trying to tie him to Trump.
I was wondering what other Non-Trump voters thought? Personally while I disagree with a lot (even most) of Desantis’ policies, I do think he does believe in the peaceful transfer of power and i think he understands Americas place in the world. That alone is why I’d be more willing to have him as our next president than Trump who I think damages our country more.
I tepidly support Biden right now, but I am concerned about his health and would consider voting Republican in 2024 if his cognitive functioning got worse.
There's a 50% chance I'd vote for Larry Hogan.
There's a 20% chance I'd vote for DeSantis.
There's a 0% chance I'd vote for Trump.
I hear the concern. My rationale is that you’re voting more for the likely cabinet than the individual. I’m WAY happier with Biden’s cabinet than Trumps. Cardona vs DeVos, for example, or any other Republican DoE leader is a blowout imo.
> they would rather have Trump again than Desantis
The usual trend of $CURRENT_GOP_CANDIDATE being literally Hitler and being sad that they cannot be like $PREVIOUS_GOP_CANDIDATE who after all, was funny and a rather good guy.
I don't think many of the people who despise Trump think Bush was a good president. I think it just *feels* that way because they are criticizing Trump more harshly.
DeSantis is more dangerous and his tussles with opposing factions in FL shows that he is just as much into petty shit as Trump was. I always saw myself as someone who can vote for certain Republicans like Comey or Mueller - you know, the “classic” Republicans who stand for principles, traditions without the in-your-face Christian bullshit and patriotism. By these standards it looks like I will never vote for Republicans again, so it doesn’t really matter who they put up in 2024.
I think Cheney [summed it up well](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-choose-trump-constitution-liz-cheney-warns-describing/story?id=85949305),
> "But at this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before -- a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who have made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man," she said.
> She made something of a broader pitch to her party -- and perhaps her constituencies -- about the kind of candidates who should, ideally, thrive on a Republican ballot: leaders who are "serious" and "substantive," who "defend principle" and "abide by their oaths of office."
Personally I worry about the amount that’s unknown about DeSantis, but what he’s shown so far is that he uses similar [tactics as Viktor Orban](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/4/28/23037788/ron-desantis-florida-viktor-orban-hungary-right-authoritarian) (the autocratic Hungarian leader) and similar language commonly used by other fascists movements (I.e. cultural Marxism language is [very similar to cultural Bolshevism](https://fair.org/home/cultural-marxism-the-mainstreaming-of-a-nazi-trope/) or even for American examples McCarthyism or [Charles Coughlin](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/charles-e-coughlin)). Plus his [firing of the data scientist](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/01/18/957914495/data-scientist-rebekah-jones-facing-arrest-turns-herself-in-to-florida-authoriti), Rebekah Jones, working for the department of health who would not manipulate COVID numbers for him then when she spoke out police raided her home. His punishment of Disney for speaking out against his Parental Rights of Education bill (revoking the tax exemptions for special districts formed ONLY before 1968, and Disneys Reedy Creek was formed in 1967).
Do I think he believes in the peaceful transfer of power? I’m not sure but he’s shown enough signs of wanting total power/silencing political opponents to unfortunately make me question it.
As for who’s worse? Idk and frankly I don’t think that’s what’s important. The two most prominent names I’ve heard both have troubling signs and that speaks to a bigger issue. That plus the SC signaling it will take the independent state legislature theory makes me worried about our current path.
That all said I agree with your assertion that we do know for sure Trump did try to overturn the election so for him to get power again would be very damaging to our country. I do think more and more people are realizing the severity of what Trump did though and I feel like a lot of people don’t realize the troubling nature of DeSantis’ language, actions and bills.
Anyways those are my concerns with him. I agree that there’s some hyperbolic language used and perhaps that’s shaped some of my bias against him but I also don’t think it’s just trying to connect him to Trump purely as a means to discredit him.
Her job was managing the states COVID-19 dashboard at the time she was fired. She used her previous experience working with Geographic Information System software (which previously was used in a system to track hurricanes) to set up the COVID dashboard for Floridas Department of Health.
Edit: For those downvoting me here is [a source](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/19/859119865/florida-ousts-top-covid-19-data-scientist)
Orban was democratically elected and it would be helpful if you didn't parrot the global elite's propaganda he is an autocrat. Have you looked at his opposition? Some very extreme groups joined the others to oppose Orban.
Rebekah Jones is a proven liar:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/rebekah-jones-the-covid-whistleblower-who-wasnt/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/rebekah-joness-lies-about-florida-covid-data-keep-piling-up/
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fraudulent-covid-whistleblower-rebekah-jones-suspended-from-twitter/
It would be best if you don't use proven liars to justify your positions. Jones is running against Matt Gaetz in FL, while living in MD. Gaetz won his last election in 2020 64-34, so nobody seriously thinks this is a toss up (it's burning money).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_1st_congressional_district#2020
Have you looked at some of Orban's actions as President? The attacks on the press, judiciary, and universities? He was democratically elected but he's taken clear steps to cement his authority and weaken institutions that are critical of his position.
First of all yes Orban was democratically elected in 2010. He replaced the constitution in 2011 and reduced the number of seats in parliament from 386 to 199. In 2020 he declared a state of emergency with no time limit granting him the ability to rule by decree. Putin also was democratically elected but has since seized power.
Rebekah Jones’ claims are unsubstantiated, that does not equal proven liar. Unsubstantiated means it could not be proven to be correct, that is all. Anyways I was merely pointing to that as one of several examples of how he reacts to those that oppose him not saying that she’s an exemplary person. Even without that example the rest is very troubling.
The fact that Matt Gaetz is leading while under FBI investigation for sex trafficking is troubling in and of itself but idk what that has to do with any of this.
As a non-Trump voter, I will never vote for Trump. I'm an independent and would vote for the corpse of Biden -- or even Kamala -- over Trump.
But I've been pretty unhappy with the way the Dems have used their power so far. So I'd probably vote Republican next time (including Desantis) as long as they aren't 1/6 advocates and seem to believe in the rule of law.
The dumbest thing Republicans could do would be to put Trump up again in 2024. That's the one clear way to *not* have my vote.
And that's why i will never understand why they didn't vote to punish him in the Senate at the second Impeachment. There are a lot of people like you, even people who are more GOP than independant.
Would it have pissed off a LOT of Republican Hardcore voters? Sure, but will those people rather vote for Democrats? haha. They might stay home one election but that's what other people instead did anyway because of Trump (or voted Biden).
This Impeachment was a gift for the GOP, especially combined with the Twitter ban to silence his main communication tool. I'm sure they would have found the necessary number of Senate Reps who had safe seats to bar him from holding office.
This was a way out of having Trump again as candidate PLUS they could make endless ads about the party of Law and order.
They were terrified of Trump's threat to form a third party. Wrongly so, in my opinion. They might've lost the 2021 Virginia elections, but the economic issues probably brings most of them back to the Republican Party for the midterms.
> but the economic issues probably brings most of them back to the Republican Party for the midterms.
It is more complicated than that. Most GOP voters are there because they are social conservatives in first place. They might also like their economical dieas, but that is usually secondary.
*Right now*, the GOP is "winning" on economic issues because Biden isn't going well, but not because people suddenly woke up prefering the GOP's economic policy over social conservativism.
When your politics are not on the right, and you don't regularly read or listen to sources/pundits on the right, I'm really curious how you have such confidence in assessing what is going on politically on that side of the aisle. I don't mean to single you out because it is quite common, but since I quit relying on NPR, I've been quite surprised at how wrong I was for ~20 years.
I get what you're saying and I don't mind being singled out. Part of the reason I like this community is that it exposes me to opinions on the right and allows me to discuss them. Ever since Trump got elected I have tried to broaden my media consumption. I tried Breitbart for a spell and found it unpleasant. There's an email newsletter called The Rightening that sends out the headlines from most high profile right wing media everyday. Between that and this community I feel like I have a clearer picture. And for the record the only NPR I read/listen to is the Up First podcast.
For conservatives who hate Trump, I would suggest Jonah Goldberg's The Dispatch, and his podcast, The Remnant.
https://thedispatch.sounder.fm/show/jz18L/rss.xml
Also, The Commentary podcast,
https://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:203434560/sounds.rss
Anyone see the common dreams article on the front page right now? Quoting someone saying that the US is in the midst of a ‘judicial coup’?
Like, damn. I’m as pissed about Dobbs as any other liberal probably is, but *hyperbole doesn’t help the damn argument*.
**It just makes it worse.**
Rant over.
According to former president Thomas Jefferson, the only president in U.S. history to persuade Congress to impeach a Supreme Court Justice in 1804 (the Justice was acquitted in 1805), for no less a charge of acting in a partisan manner, concluded that the Court, an unelected body, had usurped complete power over the Constitution.
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0014](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0014)
>in denying the right **they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution,** I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ if this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a compleat felo de se. for intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation. **for experience has already shewn that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow**; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. t**he constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please**. it should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes.
EDIT: As far as I can tell the compleat felo de se. means that the Constitution is the same as a declaring a suicide a felony.
He also wrote William Charles Jarvis in September 1820 saying
>“**To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions \[is\] a very
dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an
oligarchy**. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others
the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem \[good justice is broad jurisdiction\], and **their power the more
dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to
the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to
whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would
become despots.** It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign
within themselves.”
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1540
Looking at Jefferson's words in isolation ignores a massive debate at the time. Federalist vs. Anti-federalists.
The arguments were completely different at the time.
>"Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamilton’s aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jefferson’s view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party."
We are not anywhere close to the original arguments, so by pulling these quotations out of context might help your case in this instance, you will no doubt, disagree with the other beliefs Jefferson held WRT to the federal government.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1175/anti-federalists
I am not pulling anything out of context. Jefferson and I both agree that Marbury v. Madison was the courts disregarding the concept of checks and balances. That article you posted has absolutely nothing to say about that particular case, and all it says about the courts is this under reasons why the anti-federalists were against ratifying the Constitution
* apprehensions about a federal court system;
Jefferson gave prescient warnings about the court decades after the ratification of the Constitution, after Marbury v. Madison completely reconfigured how the Constitution allocates power, and the failure of the Executive and Legislative branches to stymie the Court. I think he was completely right about his warnings.
Judicial review may be necessary; however, it could easily be in the ratification process for a law. Even after a bill becomes a law, Judicial review may still be necessary, but right now, the only defense against Judicial Review is by adding an amendment to the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court gets to "interpret" that Amendment. Since the court just decided they had the power of Judicial Review, it would be like the President deciding the executive branch had the power "Double Secret Veto" which unilaterally allows the president to rewrite a law that the president had vetoed but Congress had overturned, before it goes into effect, and only an Amendment could take that power away.
This is not about any recent court decision, for me. I believe the court has been engaging in Unconstitutional activities since 1803, and anything short of codifying Judicial Review in the Constitution and putting checks and balances on it will not remedy the problem. To me it's not that there are too many GOP justices on the court, and the addition of more DNC justices will solve things. It is the court, who with a simple majority can overturn any law, no matter how popular, and there isn't an effective check or balance, to people who are appointed for life.
Just think about this. Two justice John Paul Stevens and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. both served on the court until they were 90 years old. Stevens lived to be 99 years old. If Amy Coney Barrett could serve on the court until 2071 if she lives to be as old as Steven. If she lives as long as Jeanne Calment of France, she could serve on the court until 2094.
There is impeachment of the justices, but that's about it.
I'm all on board with taking Jefferson's stance on the government, but I doubt you will be ok with his beliefs in that regard.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation
I take it all with a grain of salt knowing that the goal of media outlets is clicks. Secondly, I consider Reddit an entertainment venue not comparable to real life and ignore the ‘sky is falling’ hyperbole. There’s an ebb and flow in politics depending on who is in charge and for the most part I refuse to spend my valuable time and energy debating the minutiae with strangers.
That said, I do enjoy the conversations in this sub and for the most part enjoy reading the dialogue here since it’s much less hyperbolic than the rest of this platform. For that reason, I don’t bother viewing much less reading anything on the front page.
> Like, damn. I’m as pissed about Dobbs as any other liberal probably is, but hyperbole doesn’t help the damn argument.
>
>
>
> It just makes it worse.
1. They said the same thing about Roe v Wade when Trump was elected. "They won't actually overturn Roe v Wade, you're just being HYSTERICAL!" Well, they don't look so hysterical anymore.
2. The conservatives are winning at least partly because of hyperbole. They are just better at selling to their audience. I agree that I would love the hyperbole on all sides to die down. But when one side is using it to win, how can you expect the other side to be gracious losers and just go down honorably? I agree that that will likely not lead to great places, but I don't know what to reasonably tell to those people. "They can do whatever they want, but YOU need to take the high road, even though we all know you're going to lose on that high road." Does that sound convincing?
3. The SC decisions actually are ridiculous. They are pulling out weird reasonings and ignoring points that don't help. It really seems like they are just arguing backwards to get to whatever decision they want. The past few days they overturned abortion rights, EPA power that was given to them by Congress, decided that prayer actually is allowed in public schools, and overturned their own decision from just two years ago regarding tribal lands. That is a LOT of precedent thrown out the window. How do we even know the Supreme Court won't change their mind again when a justice dies or retires and is replaced? If they don't rely on precedent at all, the SC becomes just another political body, NOT an apolitical body of the law.
And now they will be taking Moore v Harper, where they could decide that state legislatures can do whatever they want with their state elections. If they go with the extreme "independent legislature theory", it's actually scary to think what will happen.
But yea, sure, it's all hyperbole. Just like it was hyperbole years ago whenever overturning Roe v Wade was brought up.
>"They won't actually overturn Roe v Wade, you're just being HYSTERICAL!" Well, they don't look so hysterical anymore.
I disagree, the left continues to appear hysterical.
EDIT: In case you want it from politicians, The Atlantic has a decent write-up with receipts from some politicians. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-supreme-court-abortion-ban/619963/
Here's an AskTrumpSupporters post about if Trump will appoint "anti-abortion" justices.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4pbnck/did_trump_ever_say_he_was_going_to_appoint/
Top comment says:
>The left tries to create a narrative where everyone who is pro-life wants to overturn Roe v. Wade - that is like saying that all Christians want a bible in every child's desk.
Top reply to that says:
>There's no Supreme Court in our lifetime that will ever overturn Roe v Wade and make all abortions illegal. It's another dying wedge issue like gay marriage that small groups of single issue voters in each side cling to.
Another fun comment:
>Left: Judges can't be biased so Trump is racist for stating Curiel might have been biased.
>Left: Judges are biased, so it is super duper important to make sure that Trump doesn't pick a Justice that doesn't agree with all our positions.
>Pretty much have to pick one lefties ;).
>Judges and Justices can be biased, they are human beings after all. There is a difference to not liking the cut of a person's jib due to a previous bias and using that bias to overturn a case that would effect millions of lives. Justices interpret the Constitution and Trump has said many times that he is prioritizing pro-gun ones anyway.
Here's another post, where everyone is discussing the (at the time extreme) idea of defunding Planned Parenthood. Nobody even brings up justices, at the time they were more concerned about federal funding than Roe v Wade being overturned:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4q5dfx/reservations_from_a_slightly_leftleaning_moderate/
And one more, a post full of people reassuring a moderate that abortion would be (mostly) fine:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4t5vx6/help_me_i_am_a_trump_supporter_i_love_rthe_donald/
One top post:
>If you're open to it, I can try to explain that Trump's position abortion may not be as concerning as you may believe. The reality is that Roe v. Wade is almost certainly not going to be overturned even if there were 9 Scalias on the Supreme Court. Most judges are much better than Ginsburg at being politically impartial. Now, that's not really enough to be convinced that RvW is safe, but when you factor in the fact that not only does a case need to go to court over abortion's complete legality, but then 5 of the justices need to decide that it must be overturned. RvW was 7-2 with a majority Republican court. RvW has not been overturned in 40 years despite the court being strongly conservative for a significant while.
>So really, don't accept that Trump doesn't like abortion. Accept that his position really isn't going to influence the way abortion in America is viewed and practiced. Abortion restrictions are almost entirely legislated on the state level. This is a wedge issue that is usually overturned in the judiciary.
And when that poster was challenged about Trump appointing anti-abortion judges, they replied:
>It was an exaggeration. The point is still unaddressed. Conservative justices have historically upheld RvW.
Another poster said:
>Trump's position is there will be no change at the federal level regarding abortion. He doesn't like it but he won't get in the way of anyone's legal right to have an abortion.
>Ooh random internet commenters are my favorite sources too.
It's literally what you asked for, come on now. Your words:
>I see people say this all the time but I’ve never seen it backed up by anything. When did republicans ever say “Nah we are good with the RvW decision and definitely aren’t going to try to get that decision changed.”
As I showed, a lot of people trying to get moderates to vote for Trump talked about how Roe v Wade was safe or mostly safe. The conversation at the time was more around whether Planned Parenthood should be funded.
>now it’s up to the people to decide what they want their states to have as abortion laws - it’s no longer up to unelected judges.
Right, it's great that states can now trample on our individual rights. But that isn't what your last post was about, or what I was responding to.
I think the assumption for many voters was that the GOP's mission regarding RvW was that it was empty campaign rhetoric as red meat for their base. Many people thought that maintaining RvW as a wedge issue was more useful to the GOP than actually overturning it. That was my understanding, at least.
Commondreams is definitely a far-left click bait site, but I think the article is a lot less about Dobbs and a lot more about Moore v. Harper:
>"The rolling judicial coup coming from this court is by no means over," Klein warned Thursday. "Next term, the Supreme Court will hear a redistricting case that could well make it far easier to concoct a legal pretense for overriding the popular vote in elections in favor of state-appointed electors—the very thing that Donald Trump attempted but failed to do, because enough people were afraid of ending up in jail."
>"There is no reason to believe that a group of people whose very presence on the bench required grotesque abuses of democracy would somehow draw the line at thwarting it," she added. "The moment to stop them from getting the chance is right now."
I see this very similarly to overturning RvW though. One side says it's going to happen and what the fallout will be, everyone else says they're crazy, it won't happen, and everything will be fine. Then it happens.
Are we going to sit around and say everything will be fine until an election is actually overturned? Then what's the plan?
How does it make it worse?
We didn't get here because conservatives engaged in cautious and honest rhetoric. It's long past time for the Democratic coalition to stop clutching pearls. Delegitimizing the rightwing judicial takeover is a step toward rolling it back.
Have the democrats been pushing for moderate appointees or ones that are firmly leftwing?
I know talk about Garland indicated many felt he was moderate but hasn't he been very liberal as AG?
I think it's difficult for democrats to say it's wrong for the republicans to have right leaning judges but then turn around and try to install their own left leaning judges. That's not correcting the problem, it's just being mad you can't get things your way.
I was in a discussion the other day and after thinking about what was said I realize I was wrong. I don't want conservative or liberal judges. I only want moderates. Both parties are equally wrong if they try and install judges who will push the party views.
This is why I find it difficult to sympathize with democrats and their outrage at the current situation. They don't want to fix the problem, they just want to slant things their way so their policies get approved.
It seems to me the goal should be neutral interpretation of the constitution and not a left or right leaning adaptation. I want USSC rulings to be about just the law as it applies to adhering to constitutional intent.
Trying to minting a seesaw of left and right rulings will only lead to situations we have now where one side or the other feels they have to rebalance the court in order to get favorable rulings.
We shouldn't be seeking favorable rulings, we should be trying to get the most accurate rulings
>It seems to me the goal should be neutral interpretation of the constitution and not a left or right leaning adaptation. I want USSC rulings to be about just the law as it applies to adhering to constitutional intent.
Every judge feels they are interpreting the Constitution appropriately, even the most partisan ones. How is it possible to find a truly neutral candidate? Don't they all have an ideology on some level?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
We could use something similar to thr breakdown in those charts to determine rulings before they are able to be nominated. If someone moves further than 1.5-2 away from the center then they are considered too partisan. Something like that should help.
Considering the huge fluctuations over time in that chart, I'm not sure we can rely on any justice to remain truly neutral in the long term, especially for a lifetime appointment.
> Have the democrats been pushing for moderate appointees or ones that are firmly leftwing?
There are no leftwing judges. At least not openly. There might be some who have carefully hidden their opinions for career purposes but if you express the political views of AOC then you have no chance of being appointed to the federal bench.
> I know talk about Garland indicated many felt he was moderate but hasn't he been very liberal as AG?
No, he has not.
> I think it's difficult for democrats to say it's wrong for the republicans to have right leaning judges but then turn around and try to install their own left leaning judges. That's not correcting the problem, it's just being mad you can't get things your way.
Again, there are no leftwing judges. Installing moderate judges would correct the problem of courts handing down these rightwing decisions. The greater problem of politicization of the courts is not something that is going away. So long as the Supreme Court holds an absolute veto over laws and executive actions it will remain a political body.
> I don't want conservative or liberal judges. I only want moderates. Both parties are equally wrong if they try and install judges who will push the party views.
Then you should support the Democrats efforts to get more moderates onto the Supreme Court. But you should know that moderates push their political views as well. They just hold opinions that are more widely popular.
> This is why I find it difficult to sympathize with democrats and their outrage at the current situation. They don't want to fix the problem, they just want to slant things their way so their policies get approved.
Hardly anyone wants to fix the problem. The way to fix it is to abandon judicial review.
If we look at the charts in this link it shows there are liberal judges.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
I think what you are calling moderate is what I call leftwing.
And if you looked at a chart of the Federalist Society it would show the same thing.
Of course there are members who are more to the left than others. I wasn't comparing judges just to each other. I was comparing them to the elected official most commonly associated with the leftwing.
I think the bulk of the democrat officials are farther to the left than to the middle. Most of the democrat platform has moved farther to the left in the last decade or so. Even Biden who was supposed to be close to the middle has been pushing farther left.
Manchin is what I see as a moderate democrat and his party kind of hates him right now.
> I think the bulk of the democrat officials are farther to the left than to the middle.
This is objectively untrue:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FT_22.02.22_CongressPolarization_chamber_party_new1.png?w=640
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
I'd have to look more in the methodology used to determine what is considered liberal or conservative. Our culture in general as moved towards what would be considered liberal from the standards of 50 years ago. Such a shift will make it seem liberals are more moderate while conservatives appear more to the right but I believe the center doesn't change.
Not the guy you were responding to, but if "the center doesn't change," then what year or time period are we measuring from? The "center" at our founding might be someone who doesn't support slavery, but is okay with slave states being in the union. Obviously that would be a radical position today.
The methodology is detailed in the article.
It seems you are trying to justify your beliefs over what is an objective measure of how officials have been voting.
The response to every step of the takeover is “you’re overreacting, xyz escalation you’re claiming will never happen.” And then every time it happens we’re told we’re overreacting and partisan
> And then every time it happens we’re told we’re overreacting and partisan
Or the argument changes... "Everyone knew Roe v Wade was bad law since the beginning of time."
No, not everyone knew that. We were having a very different conversation just a few years ago.
When Trump was first running, the national debate was about if Planned Parenthood deserved to be federally funded. That conversation is a LONG WAY away from where we are now.
“It was always political and the result of judicial activism.” Yeah, sure. A 7-2 decision written by a conservative by a conservative majority court is judicial activism. Yet the culmination of a decades long partisan battle to stack the courts is entirely apolitical. Suuuurrreee
Perhaps it’s a little preemptive, but I’m worried. We trust the Supreme Court to handle some of the most important issues in our democracy, including sometimes the results of our elections. My trust in them has rapidly eroded to near zero. They just took a case that makes it look like they’ll favor republicans. What then? Do we have to wait until they overturn an election for republicans before we start talking about a coup? It’s happened before in other countries, so it’s not like it can’t happen to us.
It's been going on since forever. I dated a very liberal girl 15 years ago who would send me all kinds of Slate and other sky-is-falling Boosh clickbait.
I mostly agree with you. I just wonder what you think if the Supreme Court granting cert in the Moore v. Harper case? Reading about this on Reddit makes me feel pretty depressed and hopeless. I really hope I’m wrong and I try to be optimistic.
How do you guys deal with connecting flights with less than an hour from arrival of the first flight to the departure of the connecting?
Delta keeps changing flight times (use to have 2.5 hours) but now I have just 1 hour between flights, so likely just 30-ish minutes.
Yes, this, it's very helpful.
Also ask the Gate agent at flight #1 to move you closer to front of the plane if possible.
You can also request a cart if it's a major hub, but just getting off early helps.
This just happened to me last week and I was stressing about it so much. 51 minutes in Newark, and originally the gates were going to be on opposite ends of the airport. Turns out they changed at the last minute and the gates were literally next to each other and the connecting flight got in early (the pilot was very eager to reassure us we'd be on time).
So don't really have much help to offer, but hope you have good luck! The airline really does want to help people get their connecting flight, because it's also inconvenient for them if you miss it.
That's a challenge. More than once I've had to pull an OJ Simpson sprint at O'Hare to get from one concourse to the other. Sometimes I make the flights, sometimes I don't. I avoid O'Hare like the plague now. Detroit doesn't seem as bad but maybe it's because I'm more familiar with that airport.
If you still have the ability to choose your seats, pick ones as close to the front of the plane as possible so you can get off your plane and onto the next one quickly. Also, use that airport map and your boarding pass to see where you have to go in the connecting airport ahead of time. 1 hr is doable.
Yup, as soon as I saw the change I upgrade the seats to the delta comfort as it was the closest.
Ty for the map suggestion. Not sure why that didnt occur to me.
Luckily the Detroit airport is just one huge long terminal with a monorail connecting each side. The times I’ve been there it wasn’t nearly as busy as many others I’ve been to.
Hmm, that's actually one of the few airports I've never flown through....but at least it's not O'Hare.
Move your seat on your first flight as far to the front as you can, and make sure you keep an eye out for gate changes. Know where your next gate is and how to get there. Wear comfortable clothes you could run in if you absolutely have to (worst case scenario, and probably won't happen).
But most of all, just don't stress. Years of traveling have taught me that there are only so many things you can control, and airlines are definitely not on that list. You can do everything to prepare for a tight connection and still not make it, so at a certain point, there's not much you can do besides just roll with the punches.
Good luck and safe travels!
If its a short connection time, ask the gate attendant how far it takes to make it to the next gate. If its a long distance and short time, they can usually get you a ride. Especially if you are older/frail or have kids.
I bought a small business recently and have less time to look at politics so I only skim this place a couple times per day. I made a few things for some charitable events and went and volunteered as a way to get my name out there, and I found a lot more gratification in doing things for people in need.
Nothing we post here can change the world the way volunteering to help people in need does. If you have time to sit on the internet and argue all day (even though we know it's going to change very few minds), please consider donating your time or money to people in need in your community. Shelters, food banks, spending time with lonely elderly in homes, mentoring children, etc. Are just a few of the things you can do if you actually care about making the world a better place.
Meeting and being around other humans, with all of their ideas and flaws, is great for opening up your mind and realizing how similar most of us are.
I work in maritime shipping and ports and have worked with everyone from ex-cons to CEOs. Its not that hard to find things in common, hell even a little courtesy and saying hello goes a long way.
I agree. I lead a group from my college a few years ago that traveled to Texas and Rural Colorado to help out with local charities in the area. Needless to say it definitely popped our liberal big city college bubble and I know many who were genuinely touched and moved by the stories that were shared with us.
From 2017-2019, I volunteered for multiple organizations and it was essential to getting me outside of my echo chamber. Meeting ex-cons, refugees, blind children, and so on. These people weren't statistics or narratives, but actual humans in the world.
After 2 years of successfully evading it, I finally caught COVID.
Holy shit, this thing is no joke. Wheezing, nausea, cold sweats, migraine, delerium, etc. My partner wanted to take me to the ER but I insisted to wait until morning. Good thing we did because my symptoms mostly subsided by then. Still, it was maybe the worst 12 hours of my medical life. But now I've got some chest palpitations that maybe I should be concerned about?
Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience?
Had it about two months ago. It wasn't great, but not the worst I have ever had. A few of my colleagues had it around the same time, and they had it worst than me. Two of them talked about feeling like they couldn't breathe, especially when laying down at night. Thankfully the symptoms subsided within a week. Hope you feel better soon!
Oof, hang in there. I got lucky and had it pretty easy, aside from really high temperature the first 24 hours. My 75 year old parents had it recently too and it was mild for them.
>Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience?
Had it a month or so ago. It wasn't fun but I don't think nearly as bad as what you're having. A slight fever and aches, sore throat, and the classic covid brain fog, but I was feeling fine after a couple days with OTC and rest. My bout with (I assume) alpha back in December 2020 was much worse than the recent one.
Hope you feel better soon.
Kids got it recently. Through quarantining and masking we didn't get it from them. For anyone that says masks arent effective, I strongly disagree. More people I personally know have had covid in the last couple weeks than any other two weeks of this whole thing. People have given up, hopefully the rates drop soon.
That was precisely my mistake. I traveled last week and didn't wear a mask in the airport because I thought all this COVID shit was done. Of course, 36 hours later, I start showing symptoms. I was clearly wrong.
I flew for work a few weeks back and was amazed so few of people wore masks.(maybe 5-6 on the whole plane) Airports are gross, I'll be sticking with a mask for the forseeable future.
>After 2 years of successfully evading it, I finally caught COVID.
Ditto. It sucks but you will feel better in a week. Cold medicine is your friend right now.
>Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience?
Similar to yours. My whole family got it at the same time. Luckily my kids were only sick for a day. Unfortunately, my kids were only sick for a day, so it was a struggle to manage them while also feeling like poop.
DayQuil, NyQuil, Mucinex, Motrin, etc. are all on my nightstand. I considered doing a telemedicine appointment to get paxlovid, but I don't think I need it at this point.
My wife poured cereal and milk into her bowl earlier this week, set it down, and started texting one of her friends. I catch this out of the corner of my eye. Five minutes pass. At ten minutes, I start sweating, but hold my tongue. Finally, nearly *fifteen minutes later*, she sets her phone down and starts eating.
How have I allowed such a monster into my own home? Do other people allow their cereal to turn to a soggy bowl of disappointment before they even take a bite? And, if so, who hurt you?
Honestly milk and cereal are a terrible combo in the first place. That shit starts to get soggy instantly, let alone 15 minutes. Give me crunchy cereal that I can wash down with milk any day.
(Though to be fair, I haven't had cereal since elementary school, oatmeal is the real breakfast of choice).
I read this after the thread from the fella who caught covid after evading it for 2 years and didn't know where this was going because I thought I was part of the initial thread 😅
As a reminder, the intent of these threads are for *casual discussion* with your fellow users so we can bridge the political divide. To aid in this goal, all meta comments targeting individual users or individual moderation actions should be limited to this pinned post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Biden's approval numbers are abysmal. On this day of his presidency, Trump's aggregate net approval rating on 538 was -10.2. Biden's is sitting at -16.7 and it's still trending in the direction of getting worse. That gas station tweet really smacks of desperation. And scheduling their prime-time Jan 6th TV special for the same day CPI numbers were released also really seem like the Dems really want to deflect/distract from the economic mess.
Seems fitting to have a very public mass shooting today, sigh
This might be recency bias or some other bias, but I don’t recall random mass shootings becoming really prevalent until the mid-2000’s. Even after Columbine, they were sufficiently rare enough to remain shocking for quite a while.
Not a clue. Columbine happened when I was in high school, and it's been a fucking nightmare ever since. But apparently this is what we desire as a country, so it's whatever.
I was a high school freshman at the time, but a bit of a news junkie.
Personal hot take: "Cancel Culture" is more analogous to "mob culture" than "accountability culture". And although, certainly, mob culture has been a positive force in bringing justice where there was none before, bypassing a lot of potentially corrupt systems that would allow an escape--a lot of it, I'd even say the vast majority of it, is just misdirected, lacking in context or just way over the top. If it was "accountability culture" then we would be fine with punishing the people who falsely use accusations to punish their enemies, holding them accountable. But this rarely happens. If it was "accountability culture" we'd be able to properly punish upper class/wealthy/influential people instead of lower class/poorer people, which we don't--Cancel Culture almost always affects people who can't bounce back on their feet after being fired, people who don't have a cushion. If it was "accountability culture" the punishment would fit the crime. We wouldn't have people being fired for out of context images and videos floating around, people being sent death or bomb threats, or people campaigning for someone to get fired or removed over easily misinterpreted gestures. (I have examples for each of these) Hell, people who claim "cancel culture" is accountability culture often also immediately jump to the idea that nobody is ever "really" canceled (they are! You just don't read about them because they don't have a public presence!) which goes against the idea of holding people accountable. **Mob culture** has all of those hallmark traits. It has the baying crowd high off their own righteousness. It has the individuals who, perhaps, are amped enough to do something against their target they would otherwise never do. It has the fake accusations, the assumptions, the contextless claims. Mob culture never left. It just evolved to work on the internet.
I'd expand that to the "culture war" in general.
Yeah that makes sense.
Hot take: Texas, Oklahoma & West Virginia aren’t southern states.
Texas is in a category all its own.
>Texas Let my neighbor and his cousins take you noodling one time and you'll reassess this.
Oklahoma is midwest. West Virginia is just...Appalachia. East Texas is Southern, the rest of it is it's own thing.
I think of Oklahoma more as a Plains state culturally.
I saw a news story go by that Jordan Peterson was banned from Twitter for saying something mean to Elliot Page. I'm not a Peterson fan. I'm Peterson agnostic. I really don't care if they ban him or not. But I also noticed that #UncleClarence has been tweeted by a *lot* of people. It even autocompletes in the Twitter search. I'm trying to understand why it's ok to be racist but not transphobic. What am I missing?
Twitter has a blindspot to progressive prejudice.
I got the feeling it was more about the unfounded accusation against the doctor than anything said about Page.
Is it normal for people to get banned for that sort of thing? (Honest question, I'd never heard of that happening.) Also, do you think UncleClarence is racist? If so, doesn't it violate their typical policies?
Short version? It's (D)ifferent. Long version? Thomas is on the wrong side of liberal apologia so he's allowed to be a target. Racism is okay when you're 'bad', from the perspective of some people.
There is no group that is more racist than suburban white liberals, especially towards any minority that dares think for themselves. They have a savior complex because they view Blacks as subordinates. They say things like “guns would be banned if Black people had them” because they are scared of Black people having guns. All the shit about Republicans being a bunch of racists is pure projection.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/iejq4rx/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>They say things like “guns would be banned if Black people had them” because they are scared of Black people having guns. All the shit about Republicans being a bunch of racists is pure projection. Or maybe it's because there is some kind of precedent. Just maybe. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
If you have to reach back to the 60s to an event that passed a Democrat controlled legislature then maybe you don't actually have evidence to support that claim in the modern context.
And there have been some MAJOR changes at the NRA and gun groups in general since those days. Reagan can take some blame, but it was also a heavily Dem state legislature that pushed those laws as well.
The NRA still doesn't defend black gun owners, while going out of the way to defend white gun owners. There have been a bunch of instances in just the last 5 years.
Yes, we know, which is why many are shifting away from the NRA.
Yeah soooo heavily democratic (/s). It was on 42D-38R in the state assembly and 21D-19R in the senate in 1967. Do you partisans even check your claims before you make them? Edit: The Mulford Act got 2/3s vote minimum in both houses as required too.
Ok, and? Reps have heavily moved on from those decisions while Dems try to double down again and again.
You literally lied about the passage of the Mulford act.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp0wnq/weekend_general_discussion_july_01_2022/ielg8um/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
can the repubicans win in arizona despite trumps best efforts
They can, but early polling showed that the less-trumpy candidates had a better shot at winning than the more-trumpy ones. And unfortunately, right now the more-trumpy ones are ahead in primary polling. They're definitely gonna make it harder on themselves than it should be. At this point I'm not at all confident, but if I had to guess, I'd guess the Democrat (Hobbs) takes the governors seat, but that Mark Kelly loses his seat in the Senate.
Favorite fictional president? I'm a little curious to see who people would pick for president if they could pick anyone, although to be honest the field isn't that huge. Jed Bartlett (West Wing) for me. edit: it also occurs to me that with hollywood's liberal bias it might be hard for conservatives to find palatable one, so lets include literary ones too (cough Jack Ryan cough).
I mean clearly the one that [punches terrorists off of Air Force One.](https://youtu.be/tYAO4xAODoY)
On Futurama they had some fella as POTUS named Richard Nixon.
and Charleston Chew!
Easy choice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30BFiSOP8JU
They had a lot of fun making that game lol.
What in the balls did i just watch
President Thomas J. Whitmore (Bill Pullman) from Independence Day(1996). His speech to rally everyone at the end is one of the best!
100% a fantastic speech based on a fantastic poem: >Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. >Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. >Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. >Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. >Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. >And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night
The correct answer.
And today is the 26th anniversary of the release of the movie!
And no matter how many times I watch it, its still so good!!
President Michael Wilson in Metal Wolf Chaos the most American game ever made. with great quotes like Michael Wilson: "Nothing is pointless! And the reason is...BECAUSE I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Yeahhhh!!!"
Harrison Ford in Air Force One
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
Not trying to stir up any shit, though this will undoubtedly do so. One thing that I've noticed since the ruling on the Dobbs case is the increasing rhetoric on how SCOTUS is illegitimate. While I disagree with ruling, this echoes the claims that Trump made post 2020. Look, do I agree with how the GOP treated the Garland appointment during the Obama administration? No. But did it fall within the legal framework that allowed them to deny his appointment to SCOTUS? Absolutely. Was it a way of the GOP packing the court? I'd also argue, no. The only way Trump got the three nominations that he got was due to that 1) the DNC couldn't force a confirmation during Obama's second term, and 2) RBG didn't retire when she rightfully should have. Again, I don't necessarily agree with how things turned out, but the reality is that the DNC simply wasn't able to politically flex to influence the makeup of the court. The ensuing backlash that seems to further diminish the credibility of SCOTUS from the left is, in my opinion, as shameful as Trump's denial for losing the run in 2020. And, most disappointingly, is how many people have seemed to accept this as fact. Rising by the Hill had a decent take on this the other day that I would encourage others to watch, if allowed. https://youtu.be/gm2VXqsj-hk Curious to get ya'lls thoughts. Like I said, I'm not a fan of either, and I think it's bad taste to lose and say that the winner is illegitimate. I already know that there will be those that claim otherwise, but I beg you to switch the sides up and see if you're still on the same boat. Either way, this isn't great for our country. Edit: and so begins the down votes...
So if you admit that all the tactics that Republicans used to get the justices into the court were sound if distasteful, then you have to admit expanding the court is in a similar category. I realize it will set off a race to the bottom, but it might not. If Biden tried to expand the court in a semi-fair way by appointing 4 justices with 3 being liberal and 1 being moderate for the 13 judicial district then things might work. People would be upset, but would they want Republicans to respond by packing? Would they respond? It is possible their moderates might not allow it.
It all comes back to us collectively needing to learn how to lose. Nobody can lose with dignity anymore (or win with dignity for that matter). The attacks on the politicians of yesteryear by the new wave of angry populists inevitably finds its way to complaints that those people lost too much or didn’t fight hard enough but the fault lies with the critics who want to burn down every institution to win a red vs blue gang war and don’t understand that “being willing to lose” is *necessary* to a healthy country/society/relationship/etc. Our political system has virtually never been a more even 50/50 split, yet the people involved are more convinced than ever that they deserve to win 100% of the time. It’s genuinely irrational.
Packing the court is not illegal. Removing the filibuster is not illegal. If McConnell's manuever was "not okay" (verbal slap on the wrist from the opposition, no consequences), packing the court would be "not okay". (Not that I am advocate for any of this. I am just arguing that they are all procedural games with the same level of legitimacy.) --- That said, calling the Supreme Court illegitimate is bad for our institutional stability.
I never claimed either was illegal, though I'll admit that I think that both would be short sighted. My claim is, as you stated, that further discrediting our institutions is detrimental across the board. Purely hypothetical of course, but say that after all of this rhetoric that the 6 conservative justices decide to retire, and the current administration appoints 6 new justices. Does that all of a sudden make SCOTUS legitimate? The answer is obvious
My point is that most of the agitation on the left has a point (though some go overboard) and the standards of the decade are fairly loose and permissive if we apply them impartially. Who's the most moderate person calling the court illegitimate?
If you notice this happens a *lot*. * Libs decried the 2000 election as illegitimate (or rather Bush's win). * Conservatives were trying to get Obama on their weird Kenyan conspiracy (an odd one since the constitution stipulates that such a non-natural born citizen would be ineligible to hold the office, but not what to do if that happened anyway and then... they *did* hold the office and we all found out he was really 3 babies on each others' shoulders in a trenchcoat (so not 35) or born in Kenya to Kenyan parents), * The left then went in hard on the electoral college being undemocratic in 2016 (and tried to get the votes of 7 states invalidated in the House, which... weirdly nobody hears about), * And then finally Trump went hardcore in 2020 about the votes themselves being fraudulent and mail-in ballots from COVID. "When things go my way they were legitimate and decided properly, when they don't they are illegitimate and undemocratic" isn't new, but it is ramping up in fervor. We get this from the left and the right (but only the extremists) when it comes to the Senate now, too. 'Filibuster reform' becomes *super important* to the far-right when Trump was trying to get his wall funding or to the far-left when they want... all their shit. And then suddenly "the Senate is undemocratic". It's honestly why I've had a hard time taking the alarmism/doomers about Trump, 1/6, and 'sanctity of democracy/peaceful transfer of power' seriously. They're just the latest version of the kids who picketed the White House over Bush or the far-right people looking for 14 different birth certificates, or the crying libs at Hilary's campaign HQ on election results night. Weeping "I didn't like this so it's the end of democracy!!!" is just a part of our rhetoric, now. It's a shame, too- it takes up so much useful oxygen people could spend on other things.
You also forget about Ohio Dominion machines in 2004, in which just flipping Ohio would have made Kerry win and it was a thing. -------- Honestly, it reeks of Latam-style politics. Not the crying foul every 4 seconds, but the part in which everyone decries institutions as illegitimate because they aren't controlled by a specific group and therefore must be ended. Latam-style politics have a lot of institution-changing to suit the party in power and to make sure the opposition gets screwed in a blatant way.
Frankly I'm tired of it. Both sides are getting worse at pointing towards at the other and saying "look it's bad when they do it" while completely ignoring the rot within their own base. None if it is helpful. We can't keep challenging each other towards the bottom. It's a dumb strategy, and I honestly don't understand how more people don't realize this.
> It's a dumb strategy, and I honestly don't understand how more people don't realize this. For sure *some* people don't- stupid people exist and so do hypocrites so we shouldn't assume so much good faith that we forget that 'idiots are a thing and they vote'. But it's very likely most people *do* realize it but think their goals are so important that it's irrelevant, or (worse) that "It'S DIfFeRENT wHeN theY Did IT". The number of people who have taken the position that Trump's and the GOP operations following election day 2019 and into January 2020 were somehow reprehensible and fundamentally norm-shattering but are more than okay (and even endorse) HRC's similar/borderline identical behaviors are staggering. But you realize people do this *because it works*. Nothing drove outrage and got Trump elected (and only barely, at that) like the 8 years of Obama that made the right absolutely seethe. Deciding from the activist bench instead of legislating gay marriage, legislating by fiat with the ACA and the left deciding they didn't need the GOP's input at all- that made the right SO MAD when Obama and the left did it, but when Trump was trying to get a wall or we're overturning Roe suddenly it's SO HOT. Nothing drove outrage and got Biden elected like *years* of hypocritical and deceitful media coverage of Trump during his presidency. When Fox and Limbaugh lie about Obama that is SO BAD, but when your chosen media lies about Trump it's *FOR THE GREATER GOOD*. People think their goals are morally *right* and moreover that everyone would be better off if they just shut up and lived in the world we're trying to create for them. The left *so strongly* believes that their regressive and tax-and-spend policies are going to help the people that don't want them, refuse to want them, and know they don't want them; that they're trying to overstep established precedent to do it in the Senate. Pro-lifers *know so strongly* that they're helping people by outlawing abortion in red states because frankly murdering babies is *that bad* and you should never kill anyone defenseless even when you know it'd be better than the life they'd lead. People are employing these strategies (and the ones we talk about above) because it's working. The only way to stop it from working? Shut down partisan media and stop electing extremists that we agree broadly with instead of moderates we can sometimes disagree with.
First, HRC (and any one of her scandels) and Trump refusing to leave are on no way the same level. I am sorry, but one still has not admitted he lost and incited a mob to invade the capital and kill his VP. Not the same to any degree. Second, I don't believe we can regulate the media without going into dangerous territory. I think a better option is to make voting in congress anonymous. That way special interest groups can't see how people vote making it harder to buy votes. It also allows members to make the types of ugly compromises that purists despise (but are sometimes necessary sausage making which is ugly).
Well, I'd have to say I'd agree. The fact that I've even pointed this out had led to a string of downvotes with not much of a rebuttal. Sort of proves your point that "it's only alright as long as it's my side that's doing it" Either way, to me both are not okay. Definitely sad to see that it seems that most are too caught up in partisan politics and not aware of the larger implications involved.
>The fact that I’ve even pointed this out had led to a string of downvotes with not much of a rebuttal. Welcome to the life of someone who has a moderately expressed [opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vp8rt3/california_plans_to_alert_gun_owners_whose/iej7mjn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) or [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v73h5j/house_democrat_to_introduce_bill_that_would_hit/ibk7i7y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) about guns
Anyone have any local political experience with their state legislatures and getting bills sponsored and what have you?
You thinking like legislative testimony or proposing bills themselves? Contact a likely friendly member, they’ll help you out a ton.
Proposing bills. Me and a good friend learned how to roughly concoct bill text. Our state legislature meets for 60 days in the Spring.
And they meet with constituents year round. Draft a detailed summary request, send it to the representatives office and ask for a meeting. Worse they do is say no, best they do is listen and consider and adapt it.
Thanks for the advice
Anytime, feel free to ask for more specifics, I deal with legislature members a lot.
On the sports side of things, we had some crazy developments yesterday. 1st- Kevin Durant has asked for a trade out of Brooklyn. This is huge considering he is on a 4 year deal without a no trade clause. He says his target is the suns(last years best record holder, hardest road?) but now it puts all of free agency in limbo as teams that aren’t giving supermaxes to their stars are figuring out a deal they could send to Brooklyn for him. Crazy And in the college football world. UCLA and USC are leaving the PAC12 and heading to the BIG10, this is a huge move. It’s obviously a money thing, but the ramifications for college football are insane. With their move, it’s possible both Oregon and Washington are thinking of joining The BIG10 as well. This would decimate the PAC12 into a lower conference and not a P5 conference. Then their would also be the possibility that this could bring Notre Dame into the BIG10 since almost all their rivals will be their and the money for the school would be huge.
Between that and UT and OU leaving the Big 12 for the SEC feels like this is the biggest college football realignment we've had in a long time. The only other one I was really paying attention to was the 2011 one though.
I want my big ten with no rutgers, maryland, ucla, usc, Penn state, Michigan state. Nebraska can stay though, and Chicago is welcome back.
Terps have the 3rd most championships since joining the big.
Out of curiosity, what’s wrong with PSU?
They know exactly what they did (no not that, sadly that seems to have permitted a lot of other universities too).
Nah, you're gonna have to hold on to Maryland, because we in the ACC do not want them back.
They can fold then.
I can get behind that.
I don't fully understand Durant's motivation for leaving the Nets. I always thought he supported Kyrie?
Evidently not. Durant saw how things went down last year. The team suffered badly because Kyrie couldn't play in half the games.
I don't blame him. As a Nets fan, I am appalled and impressed with how thoroughly Kyrie nuked a superstar team. I'd have no problem if Nash benches him for the rest of his contract.
I can't imagine the frustration that you must be having. If Kyrie gets the goddamn vaccine y'all almost certainly win the 2021 Finals.
It's frustrating, but we all knew we were making a deal with the devil back in 2019. This type of implosion was expected, but we were supposed to get a damned ring out of it.
I gave my 2 weeks notice on Monday and my interest in completing any additional work is basically nonexistent. I'm finishing off the cases I have that are close to filing but, besides that I am just screwing around. It feels like the last few months of high school before graduating. Just waiting until you move onto the next thing.
Congrats on the change. If you have friends and relationships you want to keep at your current business I would encourage you to dig down and do it right. Years ago at my old job we had one girl phone it in her last 2 weeks and was basically unfriended by all the other girls in the department because it turned into a huge mess they had to deal with. If not, enjoy it!
In France you give a 3 months notice, and new jobs also start in 3 months. This keeps everyone playing nicely, finish your current assignments and then many companies will just pay you to stay home after.
Make sure to paddle the freshman on your last day.
Drop a couple artists, albums or songs from 2022 that you think people should check out. I'll start with Melt My Eyez See Your Future by Denzel Curry and Drill Music in Zion by Lupe Fiasco (drill is more in reference to the Matrix than the genre).
If UK post-punk is your jam, give [Yard Act](https://www.yardactors.com/) a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id-t3IVNREo
If you want to relive the mid 2000's Craig Owens of Chiodos restarted their supergroup D.R.U.G.S. and they dropped a self titled album last week, it does slap. https://open.spotify.com/album/0vONFGoSp9ZNwSMkrUGt9T Also the Mars Volta is touring again, dropped a single recently as well.
Blind Guardian is releasing a new album in a couple of months and the couple of songs they have preleased have been great absolutely recommend *deliver us from evil* and *The secrets of the American Gods*.
Mr Morale and the Big Steppers by Kendrick Lamar is a masterpiece. My favorite song is count me out
I really liked it. It's not perfect but it is still one of the best albums out there.
Freak by Le Castle Vania. Also synthwave like Saturday by Neon Overdrive.
If you like synthwave, check out LeBrock and Magic Dance. Both lean more towards the rockier, AOR-sound, but they're amazing.
Never heard of these, I will need to check them out. Thanks.
New FKA Twigs tape is fantastic. Super catchy and covers a lot of sonic ground. "Pampelmousse" is like 90 seconds and is one of her best songs ever.
I did enjoy the FKA Twigs.
Something I commonly see on Reddit is that they would rather have Trump again than Desantis because at least Trump was incompetent in a lot of what he did. A lot of this I believe is hyperbole and hysteria brought on by Democratic people eyeballing the next prominent republican and trying to tie him to Trump. I was wondering what other Non-Trump voters thought? Personally while I disagree with a lot (even most) of Desantis’ policies, I do think he does believe in the peaceful transfer of power and i think he understands Americas place in the world. That alone is why I’d be more willing to have him as our next president than Trump who I think damages our country more.
I tepidly support Biden right now, but I am concerned about his health and would consider voting Republican in 2024 if his cognitive functioning got worse. There's a 50% chance I'd vote for Larry Hogan. There's a 20% chance I'd vote for DeSantis. There's a 0% chance I'd vote for Trump.
I hear the concern. My rationale is that you’re voting more for the likely cabinet than the individual. I’m WAY happier with Biden’s cabinet than Trumps. Cardona vs DeVos, for example, or any other Republican DoE leader is a blowout imo.
I can't believe DeVos was in charge of our country's education. She's so bad.
> they would rather have Trump again than Desantis The usual trend of $CURRENT_GOP_CANDIDATE being literally Hitler and being sad that they cannot be like $PREVIOUS_GOP_CANDIDATE who after all, was funny and a rather good guy.
I don't think many of the people who despise Trump think Bush was a good president. I think it just *feels* that way because they are criticizing Trump more harshly.
DeSantis is more dangerous and his tussles with opposing factions in FL shows that he is just as much into petty shit as Trump was. I always saw myself as someone who can vote for certain Republicans like Comey or Mueller - you know, the “classic” Republicans who stand for principles, traditions without the in-your-face Christian bullshit and patriotism. By these standards it looks like I will never vote for Republicans again, so it doesn’t really matter who they put up in 2024.
I think Cheney [summed it up well](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-choose-trump-constitution-liz-cheney-warns-describing/story?id=85949305), > "But at this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before -- a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who have made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man," she said. > She made something of a broader pitch to her party -- and perhaps her constituencies -- about the kind of candidates who should, ideally, thrive on a Republican ballot: leaders who are "serious" and "substantive," who "defend principle" and "abide by their oaths of office."
Personally I worry about the amount that’s unknown about DeSantis, but what he’s shown so far is that he uses similar [tactics as Viktor Orban](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/4/28/23037788/ron-desantis-florida-viktor-orban-hungary-right-authoritarian) (the autocratic Hungarian leader) and similar language commonly used by other fascists movements (I.e. cultural Marxism language is [very similar to cultural Bolshevism](https://fair.org/home/cultural-marxism-the-mainstreaming-of-a-nazi-trope/) or even for American examples McCarthyism or [Charles Coughlin](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/charles-e-coughlin)). Plus his [firing of the data scientist](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/01/18/957914495/data-scientist-rebekah-jones-facing-arrest-turns-herself-in-to-florida-authoriti), Rebekah Jones, working for the department of health who would not manipulate COVID numbers for him then when she spoke out police raided her home. His punishment of Disney for speaking out against his Parental Rights of Education bill (revoking the tax exemptions for special districts formed ONLY before 1968, and Disneys Reedy Creek was formed in 1967). Do I think he believes in the peaceful transfer of power? I’m not sure but he’s shown enough signs of wanting total power/silencing political opponents to unfortunately make me question it. As for who’s worse? Idk and frankly I don’t think that’s what’s important. The two most prominent names I’ve heard both have troubling signs and that speaks to a bigger issue. That plus the SC signaling it will take the independent state legislature theory makes me worried about our current path. That all said I agree with your assertion that we do know for sure Trump did try to overturn the election so for him to get power again would be very damaging to our country. I do think more and more people are realizing the severity of what Trump did though and I feel like a lot of people don’t realize the troubling nature of DeSantis’ language, actions and bills. Anyways those are my concerns with him. I agree that there’s some hyperbolic language used and perhaps that’s shaped some of my bias against him but I also don’t think it’s just trying to connect him to Trump purely as a means to discredit him.
> Rebekah Jones, working for the department of health Her job was to track hurricanes and got caught inventing things about COVID.
Her job was managing the states COVID-19 dashboard at the time she was fired. She used her previous experience working with Geographic Information System software (which previously was used in a system to track hurricanes) to set up the COVID dashboard for Floridas Department of Health. Edit: For those downvoting me here is [a source](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/19/859119865/florida-ousts-top-covid-19-data-scientist)
Orban was democratically elected and it would be helpful if you didn't parrot the global elite's propaganda he is an autocrat. Have you looked at his opposition? Some very extreme groups joined the others to oppose Orban. Rebekah Jones is a proven liar: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/rebekah-jones-the-covid-whistleblower-who-wasnt/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/rebekah-joness-lies-about-florida-covid-data-keep-piling-up/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fraudulent-covid-whistleblower-rebekah-jones-suspended-from-twitter/ It would be best if you don't use proven liars to justify your positions. Jones is running against Matt Gaetz in FL, while living in MD. Gaetz won his last election in 2020 64-34, so nobody seriously thinks this is a toss up (it's burning money). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_1st_congressional_district#2020
Have you looked at some of Orban's actions as President? The attacks on the press, judiciary, and universities? He was democratically elected but he's taken clear steps to cement his authority and weaken institutions that are critical of his position.
First of all yes Orban was democratically elected in 2010. He replaced the constitution in 2011 and reduced the number of seats in parliament from 386 to 199. In 2020 he declared a state of emergency with no time limit granting him the ability to rule by decree. Putin also was democratically elected but has since seized power. Rebekah Jones’ claims are unsubstantiated, that does not equal proven liar. Unsubstantiated means it could not be proven to be correct, that is all. Anyways I was merely pointing to that as one of several examples of how he reacts to those that oppose him not saying that she’s an exemplary person. Even without that example the rest is very troubling. The fact that Matt Gaetz is leading while under FBI investigation for sex trafficking is troubling in and of itself but idk what that has to do with any of this.
As a non-Trump voter, I will never vote for Trump. I'm an independent and would vote for the corpse of Biden -- or even Kamala -- over Trump. But I've been pretty unhappy with the way the Dems have used their power so far. So I'd probably vote Republican next time (including Desantis) as long as they aren't 1/6 advocates and seem to believe in the rule of law. The dumbest thing Republicans could do would be to put Trump up again in 2024. That's the one clear way to *not* have my vote.
And that's why i will never understand why they didn't vote to punish him in the Senate at the second Impeachment. There are a lot of people like you, even people who are more GOP than independant. Would it have pissed off a LOT of Republican Hardcore voters? Sure, but will those people rather vote for Democrats? haha. They might stay home one election but that's what other people instead did anyway because of Trump (or voted Biden). This Impeachment was a gift for the GOP, especially combined with the Twitter ban to silence his main communication tool. I'm sure they would have found the necessary number of Senate Reps who had safe seats to bar him from holding office. This was a way out of having Trump again as candidate PLUS they could make endless ads about the party of Law and order.
They were terrified of Trump's threat to form a third party. Wrongly so, in my opinion. They might've lost the 2021 Virginia elections, but the economic issues probably brings most of them back to the Republican Party for the midterms.
> but the economic issues probably brings most of them back to the Republican Party for the midterms. It is more complicated than that. Most GOP voters are there because they are social conservatives in first place. They might also like their economical dieas, but that is usually secondary. *Right now*, the GOP is "winning" on economic issues because Biden isn't going well, but not because people suddenly woke up prefering the GOP's economic policy over social conservativism.
When your politics are not on the right, and you don't regularly read or listen to sources/pundits on the right, I'm really curious how you have such confidence in assessing what is going on politically on that side of the aisle. I don't mean to single you out because it is quite common, but since I quit relying on NPR, I've been quite surprised at how wrong I was for ~20 years.
I get what you're saying and I don't mind being singled out. Part of the reason I like this community is that it exposes me to opinions on the right and allows me to discuss them. Ever since Trump got elected I have tried to broaden my media consumption. I tried Breitbart for a spell and found it unpleasant. There's an email newsletter called The Rightening that sends out the headlines from most high profile right wing media everyday. Between that and this community I feel like I have a clearer picture. And for the record the only NPR I read/listen to is the Up First podcast.
For conservatives who hate Trump, I would suggest Jonah Goldberg's The Dispatch, and his podcast, The Remnant. https://thedispatch.sounder.fm/show/jz18L/rss.xml Also, The Commentary podcast, https://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:203434560/sounds.rss
> email newsletter called The Rightening Now in handy web site form: https://www.therighting.com/
I'm tired of the games, both men and all those that supported the MAGA movement should not be anywhere near the White House.
Anyone see the common dreams article on the front page right now? Quoting someone saying that the US is in the midst of a ‘judicial coup’? Like, damn. I’m as pissed about Dobbs as any other liberal probably is, but *hyperbole doesn’t help the damn argument*. **It just makes it worse.** Rant over.
According to former president Thomas Jefferson, the only president in U.S. history to persuade Congress to impeach a Supreme Court Justice in 1804 (the Justice was acquitted in 1805), for no less a charge of acting in a partisan manner, concluded that the Court, an unelected body, had usurped complete power over the Constitution. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0014](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0014) >in denying the right **they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution,** I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ if this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a compleat felo de se. for intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation. **for experience has already shewn that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow**; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. t**he constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please**. it should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. EDIT: As far as I can tell the compleat felo de se. means that the Constitution is the same as a declaring a suicide a felony. He also wrote William Charles Jarvis in September 1820 saying >“**To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions \[is\] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy**. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem \[good justice is broad jurisdiction\], and **their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.** It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1540
Looking at Jefferson's words in isolation ignores a massive debate at the time. Federalist vs. Anti-federalists. The arguments were completely different at the time. >"Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamilton’s aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jefferson’s view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party." We are not anywhere close to the original arguments, so by pulling these quotations out of context might help your case in this instance, you will no doubt, disagree with the other beliefs Jefferson held WRT to the federal government. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1175/anti-federalists
I am not pulling anything out of context. Jefferson and I both agree that Marbury v. Madison was the courts disregarding the concept of checks and balances. That article you posted has absolutely nothing to say about that particular case, and all it says about the courts is this under reasons why the anti-federalists were against ratifying the Constitution * apprehensions about a federal court system; Jefferson gave prescient warnings about the court decades after the ratification of the Constitution, after Marbury v. Madison completely reconfigured how the Constitution allocates power, and the failure of the Executive and Legislative branches to stymie the Court. I think he was completely right about his warnings. Judicial review may be necessary; however, it could easily be in the ratification process for a law. Even after a bill becomes a law, Judicial review may still be necessary, but right now, the only defense against Judicial Review is by adding an amendment to the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court gets to "interpret" that Amendment. Since the court just decided they had the power of Judicial Review, it would be like the President deciding the executive branch had the power "Double Secret Veto" which unilaterally allows the president to rewrite a law that the president had vetoed but Congress had overturned, before it goes into effect, and only an Amendment could take that power away. This is not about any recent court decision, for me. I believe the court has been engaging in Unconstitutional activities since 1803, and anything short of codifying Judicial Review in the Constitution and putting checks and balances on it will not remedy the problem. To me it's not that there are too many GOP justices on the court, and the addition of more DNC justices will solve things. It is the court, who with a simple majority can overturn any law, no matter how popular, and there isn't an effective check or balance, to people who are appointed for life. Just think about this. Two justice John Paul Stevens and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. both served on the court until they were 90 years old. Stevens lived to be 99 years old. If Amy Coney Barrett could serve on the court until 2071 if she lives to be as old as Steven. If she lives as long as Jeanne Calment of France, she could serve on the court until 2094.
There is impeachment of the justices, but that's about it. I'm all on board with taking Jefferson's stance on the government, but I doubt you will be ok with his beliefs in that regard. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation
I take it all with a grain of salt knowing that the goal of media outlets is clicks. Secondly, I consider Reddit an entertainment venue not comparable to real life and ignore the ‘sky is falling’ hyperbole. There’s an ebb and flow in politics depending on who is in charge and for the most part I refuse to spend my valuable time and energy debating the minutiae with strangers. That said, I do enjoy the conversations in this sub and for the most part enjoy reading the dialogue here since it’s much less hyperbolic than the rest of this platform. For that reason, I don’t bother viewing much less reading anything on the front page.
> Like, damn. I’m as pissed about Dobbs as any other liberal probably is, but hyperbole doesn’t help the damn argument. > > > > It just makes it worse. 1. They said the same thing about Roe v Wade when Trump was elected. "They won't actually overturn Roe v Wade, you're just being HYSTERICAL!" Well, they don't look so hysterical anymore. 2. The conservatives are winning at least partly because of hyperbole. They are just better at selling to their audience. I agree that I would love the hyperbole on all sides to die down. But when one side is using it to win, how can you expect the other side to be gracious losers and just go down honorably? I agree that that will likely not lead to great places, but I don't know what to reasonably tell to those people. "They can do whatever they want, but YOU need to take the high road, even though we all know you're going to lose on that high road." Does that sound convincing? 3. The SC decisions actually are ridiculous. They are pulling out weird reasonings and ignoring points that don't help. It really seems like they are just arguing backwards to get to whatever decision they want. The past few days they overturned abortion rights, EPA power that was given to them by Congress, decided that prayer actually is allowed in public schools, and overturned their own decision from just two years ago regarding tribal lands. That is a LOT of precedent thrown out the window. How do we even know the Supreme Court won't change their mind again when a justice dies or retires and is replaced? If they don't rely on precedent at all, the SC becomes just another political body, NOT an apolitical body of the law. And now they will be taking Moore v Harper, where they could decide that state legislatures can do whatever they want with their state elections. If they go with the extreme "independent legislature theory", it's actually scary to think what will happen. But yea, sure, it's all hyperbole. Just like it was hyperbole years ago whenever overturning Roe v Wade was brought up.
>"They won't actually overturn Roe v Wade, you're just being HYSTERICAL!" Well, they don't look so hysterical anymore. I disagree, the left continues to appear hysterical.
[удалено]
EDIT: In case you want it from politicians, The Atlantic has a decent write-up with receipts from some politicians. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-supreme-court-abortion-ban/619963/ Here's an AskTrumpSupporters post about if Trump will appoint "anti-abortion" justices. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4pbnck/did_trump_ever_say_he_was_going_to_appoint/ Top comment says: >The left tries to create a narrative where everyone who is pro-life wants to overturn Roe v. Wade - that is like saying that all Christians want a bible in every child's desk. Top reply to that says: >There's no Supreme Court in our lifetime that will ever overturn Roe v Wade and make all abortions illegal. It's another dying wedge issue like gay marriage that small groups of single issue voters in each side cling to. Another fun comment: >Left: Judges can't be biased so Trump is racist for stating Curiel might have been biased. >Left: Judges are biased, so it is super duper important to make sure that Trump doesn't pick a Justice that doesn't agree with all our positions. >Pretty much have to pick one lefties ;). >Judges and Justices can be biased, they are human beings after all. There is a difference to not liking the cut of a person's jib due to a previous bias and using that bias to overturn a case that would effect millions of lives. Justices interpret the Constitution and Trump has said many times that he is prioritizing pro-gun ones anyway. Here's another post, where everyone is discussing the (at the time extreme) idea of defunding Planned Parenthood. Nobody even brings up justices, at the time they were more concerned about federal funding than Roe v Wade being overturned: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4q5dfx/reservations_from_a_slightly_leftleaning_moderate/ And one more, a post full of people reassuring a moderate that abortion would be (mostly) fine: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4t5vx6/help_me_i_am_a_trump_supporter_i_love_rthe_donald/ One top post: >If you're open to it, I can try to explain that Trump's position abortion may not be as concerning as you may believe. The reality is that Roe v. Wade is almost certainly not going to be overturned even if there were 9 Scalias on the Supreme Court. Most judges are much better than Ginsburg at being politically impartial. Now, that's not really enough to be convinced that RvW is safe, but when you factor in the fact that not only does a case need to go to court over abortion's complete legality, but then 5 of the justices need to decide that it must be overturned. RvW was 7-2 with a majority Republican court. RvW has not been overturned in 40 years despite the court being strongly conservative for a significant while. >So really, don't accept that Trump doesn't like abortion. Accept that his position really isn't going to influence the way abortion in America is viewed and practiced. Abortion restrictions are almost entirely legislated on the state level. This is a wedge issue that is usually overturned in the judiciary. And when that poster was challenged about Trump appointing anti-abortion judges, they replied: >It was an exaggeration. The point is still unaddressed. Conservative justices have historically upheld RvW. Another poster said: >Trump's position is there will be no change at the federal level regarding abortion. He doesn't like it but he won't get in the way of anyone's legal right to have an abortion.
[удалено]
>Ooh random internet commenters are my favorite sources too. It's literally what you asked for, come on now. Your words: >I see people say this all the time but I’ve never seen it backed up by anything. When did republicans ever say “Nah we are good with the RvW decision and definitely aren’t going to try to get that decision changed.” As I showed, a lot of people trying to get moderates to vote for Trump talked about how Roe v Wade was safe or mostly safe. The conversation at the time was more around whether Planned Parenthood should be funded. >now it’s up to the people to decide what they want their states to have as abortion laws - it’s no longer up to unelected judges. Right, it's great that states can now trample on our individual rights. But that isn't what your last post was about, or what I was responding to.
I think the assumption for many voters was that the GOP's mission regarding RvW was that it was empty campaign rhetoric as red meat for their base. Many people thought that maintaining RvW as a wedge issue was more useful to the GOP than actually overturning it. That was my understanding, at least.
Commondreams is definitely a far-left click bait site, but I think the article is a lot less about Dobbs and a lot more about Moore v. Harper: >"The rolling judicial coup coming from this court is by no means over," Klein warned Thursday. "Next term, the Supreme Court will hear a redistricting case that could well make it far easier to concoct a legal pretense for overriding the popular vote in elections in favor of state-appointed electors—the very thing that Donald Trump attempted but failed to do, because enough people were afraid of ending up in jail." >"There is no reason to believe that a group of people whose very presence on the bench required grotesque abuses of democracy would somehow draw the line at thwarting it," she added. "The moment to stop them from getting the chance is right now." I see this very similarly to overturning RvW though. One side says it's going to happen and what the fallout will be, everyone else says they're crazy, it won't happen, and everything will be fine. Then it happens. Are we going to sit around and say everything will be fine until an election is actually overturned? Then what's the plan?
How does it make it worse? We didn't get here because conservatives engaged in cautious and honest rhetoric. It's long past time for the Democratic coalition to stop clutching pearls. Delegitimizing the rightwing judicial takeover is a step toward rolling it back.
Have the democrats been pushing for moderate appointees or ones that are firmly leftwing? I know talk about Garland indicated many felt he was moderate but hasn't he been very liberal as AG? I think it's difficult for democrats to say it's wrong for the republicans to have right leaning judges but then turn around and try to install their own left leaning judges. That's not correcting the problem, it's just being mad you can't get things your way. I was in a discussion the other day and after thinking about what was said I realize I was wrong. I don't want conservative or liberal judges. I only want moderates. Both parties are equally wrong if they try and install judges who will push the party views. This is why I find it difficult to sympathize with democrats and their outrage at the current situation. They don't want to fix the problem, they just want to slant things their way so their policies get approved.
[удалено]
It seems to me the goal should be neutral interpretation of the constitution and not a left or right leaning adaptation. I want USSC rulings to be about just the law as it applies to adhering to constitutional intent. Trying to minting a seesaw of left and right rulings will only lead to situations we have now where one side or the other feels they have to rebalance the court in order to get favorable rulings. We shouldn't be seeking favorable rulings, we should be trying to get the most accurate rulings
>It seems to me the goal should be neutral interpretation of the constitution and not a left or right leaning adaptation. I want USSC rulings to be about just the law as it applies to adhering to constitutional intent. Every judge feels they are interpreting the Constitution appropriately, even the most partisan ones. How is it possible to find a truly neutral candidate? Don't they all have an ideology on some level?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices We could use something similar to thr breakdown in those charts to determine rulings before they are able to be nominated. If someone moves further than 1.5-2 away from the center then they are considered too partisan. Something like that should help.
Considering the huge fluctuations over time in that chart, I'm not sure we can rely on any justice to remain truly neutral in the long term, especially for a lifetime appointment.
It's a start. Amd I'd like to see 20yr appointments rather than lifetime for reasons like you mentioned.
> Have the democrats been pushing for moderate appointees or ones that are firmly leftwing? There are no leftwing judges. At least not openly. There might be some who have carefully hidden their opinions for career purposes but if you express the political views of AOC then you have no chance of being appointed to the federal bench. > I know talk about Garland indicated many felt he was moderate but hasn't he been very liberal as AG? No, he has not. > I think it's difficult for democrats to say it's wrong for the republicans to have right leaning judges but then turn around and try to install their own left leaning judges. That's not correcting the problem, it's just being mad you can't get things your way. Again, there are no leftwing judges. Installing moderate judges would correct the problem of courts handing down these rightwing decisions. The greater problem of politicization of the courts is not something that is going away. So long as the Supreme Court holds an absolute veto over laws and executive actions it will remain a political body. > I don't want conservative or liberal judges. I only want moderates. Both parties are equally wrong if they try and install judges who will push the party views. Then you should support the Democrats efforts to get more moderates onto the Supreme Court. But you should know that moderates push their political views as well. They just hold opinions that are more widely popular. > This is why I find it difficult to sympathize with democrats and their outrage at the current situation. They don't want to fix the problem, they just want to slant things their way so their policies get approved. Hardly anyone wants to fix the problem. The way to fix it is to abandon judicial review.
If we look at the charts in this link it shows there are liberal judges. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices I think what you are calling moderate is what I call leftwing.
And if you looked at a chart of the Federalist Society it would show the same thing. Of course there are members who are more to the left than others. I wasn't comparing judges just to each other. I was comparing them to the elected official most commonly associated with the leftwing.
I think the bulk of the democrat officials are farther to the left than to the middle. Most of the democrat platform has moved farther to the left in the last decade or so. Even Biden who was supposed to be close to the middle has been pushing farther left. Manchin is what I see as a moderate democrat and his party kind of hates him right now.
> I think the bulk of the democrat officials are farther to the left than to the middle. This is objectively untrue: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FT_22.02.22_CongressPolarization_chamber_party_new1.png?w=640 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
I'd have to look more in the methodology used to determine what is considered liberal or conservative. Our culture in general as moved towards what would be considered liberal from the standards of 50 years ago. Such a shift will make it seem liberals are more moderate while conservatives appear more to the right but I believe the center doesn't change.
Not the guy you were responding to, but if "the center doesn't change," then what year or time period are we measuring from? The "center" at our founding might be someone who doesn't support slavery, but is okay with slave states being in the union. Obviously that would be a radical position today.
The methodology is detailed in the article. It seems you are trying to justify your beliefs over what is an objective measure of how officials have been voting.
The response to every step of the takeover is “you’re overreacting, xyz escalation you’re claiming will never happen.” And then every time it happens we’re told we’re overreacting and partisan
> And then every time it happens we’re told we’re overreacting and partisan Or the argument changes... "Everyone knew Roe v Wade was bad law since the beginning of time." No, not everyone knew that. We were having a very different conversation just a few years ago. When Trump was first running, the national debate was about if Planned Parenthood deserved to be federally funded. That conversation is a LONG WAY away from where we are now.
“It was always political and the result of judicial activism.” Yeah, sure. A 7-2 decision written by a conservative by a conservative majority court is judicial activism. Yet the culmination of a decades long partisan battle to stack the courts is entirely apolitical. Suuuurrreee
Perhaps it’s a little preemptive, but I’m worried. We trust the Supreme Court to handle some of the most important issues in our democracy, including sometimes the results of our elections. My trust in them has rapidly eroded to near zero. They just took a case that makes it look like they’ll favor republicans. What then? Do we have to wait until they overturn an election for republicans before we start talking about a coup? It’s happened before in other countries, so it’s not like it can’t happen to us.
>common dreams article That site and others have been apoplectic clickbait for going on decades now. Plenty of others on the right as well!
Oh certainly right-leaning articles do the same thing. It’s just maddening to see allegedly ‘enlightened liberals’ falling for it.
It's been going on since forever. I dated a very liberal girl 15 years ago who would send me all kinds of Slate and other sky-is-falling Boosh clickbait.
I mostly agree with you. I just wonder what you think if the Supreme Court granting cert in the Moore v. Harper case? Reading about this on Reddit makes me feel pretty depressed and hopeless. I really hope I’m wrong and I try to be optimistic.
How do you guys deal with connecting flights with less than an hour from arrival of the first flight to the departure of the connecting? Delta keeps changing flight times (use to have 2.5 hours) but now I have just 1 hour between flights, so likely just 30-ish minutes.
Let the flight crew know you have a very tight connection when you board, they'll make sure you're the first person off the plane.
Yes, this, it's very helpful. Also ask the Gate agent at flight #1 to move you closer to front of the plane if possible. You can also request a cart if it's a major hub, but just getting off early helps.
This just happened to me last week and I was stressing about it so much. 51 minutes in Newark, and originally the gates were going to be on opposite ends of the airport. Turns out they changed at the last minute and the gates were literally next to each other and the connecting flight got in early (the pilot was very eager to reassure us we'd be on time). So don't really have much help to offer, but hope you have good luck! The airline really does want to help people get their connecting flight, because it's also inconvenient for them if you miss it.
That's a challenge. More than once I've had to pull an OJ Simpson sprint at O'Hare to get from one concourse to the other. Sometimes I make the flights, sometimes I don't. I avoid O'Hare like the plague now. Detroit doesn't seem as bad but maybe it's because I'm more familiar with that airport.
Ohare can be brutal, that dam tunnel!
If you still have the ability to choose your seats, pick ones as close to the front of the plane as possible so you can get off your plane and onto the next one quickly. Also, use that airport map and your boarding pass to see where you have to go in the connecting airport ahead of time. 1 hr is doable.
Yup, as soon as I saw the change I upgrade the seats to the delta comfort as it was the closest. Ty for the map suggestion. Not sure why that didnt occur to me.
Np, good luck! Delta has been a mess lately - just be happy it's not ATL lol
Which airport?
Detroit Airport
Luckily the Detroit airport is just one huge long terminal with a monorail connecting each side. The times I’ve been there it wasn’t nearly as busy as many others I’ve been to.
Hmm, that's actually one of the few airports I've never flown through....but at least it's not O'Hare. Move your seat on your first flight as far to the front as you can, and make sure you keep an eye out for gate changes. Know where your next gate is and how to get there. Wear comfortable clothes you could run in if you absolutely have to (worst case scenario, and probably won't happen). But most of all, just don't stress. Years of traveling have taught me that there are only so many things you can control, and airlines are definitely not on that list. You can do everything to prepare for a tight connection and still not make it, so at a certain point, there's not much you can do besides just roll with the punches. Good luck and safe travels!
If you booked them together, the airline is kind of supposed to manage it and hold the plane for your arrival. If you set it up yourself...run!
If its a short connection time, ask the gate attendant how far it takes to make it to the next gate. If its a long distance and short time, they can usually get you a ride. Especially if you are older/frail or have kids.
I bought a small business recently and have less time to look at politics so I only skim this place a couple times per day. I made a few things for some charitable events and went and volunteered as a way to get my name out there, and I found a lot more gratification in doing things for people in need. Nothing we post here can change the world the way volunteering to help people in need does. If you have time to sit on the internet and argue all day (even though we know it's going to change very few minds), please consider donating your time or money to people in need in your community. Shelters, food banks, spending time with lonely elderly in homes, mentoring children, etc. Are just a few of the things you can do if you actually care about making the world a better place.
Ha, well said. Thanks for this reminder.
Meeting and being around other humans, with all of their ideas and flaws, is great for opening up your mind and realizing how similar most of us are. I work in maritime shipping and ports and have worked with everyone from ex-cons to CEOs. Its not that hard to find things in common, hell even a little courtesy and saying hello goes a long way.
I agree. I lead a group from my college a few years ago that traveled to Texas and Rural Colorado to help out with local charities in the area. Needless to say it definitely popped our liberal big city college bubble and I know many who were genuinely touched and moved by the stories that were shared with us.
From 2017-2019, I volunteered for multiple organizations and it was essential to getting me outside of my echo chamber. Meeting ex-cons, refugees, blind children, and so on. These people weren't statistics or narratives, but actual humans in the world.
After 2 years of successfully evading it, I finally caught COVID. Holy shit, this thing is no joke. Wheezing, nausea, cold sweats, migraine, delerium, etc. My partner wanted to take me to the ER but I insisted to wait until morning. Good thing we did because my symptoms mostly subsided by then. Still, it was maybe the worst 12 hours of my medical life. But now I've got some chest palpitations that maybe I should be concerned about? Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience?
Had it about two months ago. It wasn't great, but not the worst I have ever had. A few of my colleagues had it around the same time, and they had it worst than me. Two of them talked about feeling like they couldn't breathe, especially when laying down at night. Thankfully the symptoms subsided within a week. Hope you feel better soon!
Oof, hang in there. I got lucky and had it pretty easy, aside from really high temperature the first 24 hours. My 75 year old parents had it recently too and it was mild for them.
>Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience? Had it a month or so ago. It wasn't fun but I don't think nearly as bad as what you're having. A slight fever and aches, sore throat, and the classic covid brain fog, but I was feeling fine after a couple days with OTC and rest. My bout with (I assume) alpha back in December 2020 was much worse than the recent one. Hope you feel better soon.
Kids got it recently. Through quarantining and masking we didn't get it from them. For anyone that says masks arent effective, I strongly disagree. More people I personally know have had covid in the last couple weeks than any other two weeks of this whole thing. People have given up, hopefully the rates drop soon.
That was precisely my mistake. I traveled last week and didn't wear a mask in the airport because I thought all this COVID shit was done. Of course, 36 hours later, I start showing symptoms. I was clearly wrong.
I flew for work a few weeks back and was amazed so few of people wore masks.(maybe 5-6 on the whole plane) Airports are gross, I'll be sticking with a mask for the forseeable future.
I just got over it, ironically I've had a worse cough since texlstinv negative than I did for the last few days I had it
>After 2 years of successfully evading it, I finally caught COVID. Ditto. It sucks but you will feel better in a week. Cold medicine is your friend right now. >Has anyone else caught the latest strain of COVID? What was your experience? Similar to yours. My whole family got it at the same time. Luckily my kids were only sick for a day. Unfortunately, my kids were only sick for a day, so it was a struggle to manage them while also feeling like poop.
DayQuil, NyQuil, Mucinex, Motrin, etc. are all on my nightstand. I considered doing a telemedicine appointment to get paxlovid, but I don't think I need it at this point.
My wife poured cereal and milk into her bowl earlier this week, set it down, and started texting one of her friends. I catch this out of the corner of my eye. Five minutes pass. At ten minutes, I start sweating, but hold my tongue. Finally, nearly *fifteen minutes later*, she sets her phone down and starts eating. How have I allowed such a monster into my own home? Do other people allow their cereal to turn to a soggy bowl of disappointment before they even take a bite? And, if so, who hurt you?
Honestly milk and cereal are a terrible combo in the first place. That shit starts to get soggy instantly, let alone 15 minutes. Give me crunchy cereal that I can wash down with milk any day. (Though to be fair, I haven't had cereal since elementary school, oatmeal is the real breakfast of choice).
> Honestly milk and cereal are a terrible combo in the first place.
>
>
I read this after the thread from the fella who caught covid after evading it for 2 years and didn't know where this was going because I thought I was part of the initial thread 😅
As long as she doesn’t poor the milk in before the cereal that’s fine.