You're not doing anyone any good by talking about the stuff you're supposed to not be watching.
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10384965/amp/AOC-reveals-COVID-partying-maskless-Miami.html
"I will never endorse this jerk again."[close]
“I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now but you won’t own it forever.” And he concluded, “I pray to God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the same kind of naked power grab that you are doing.”-Senator Joe Biden, May 23, 2005
Democrats are the OGs of setting new standards while playing hardball, and then having a surprised Pikachu face when Republicans throw those standards right back at them. 2006: "We're gonna delay every one of Bush's judicial nominations. That’ll teach him.” 2014: "NOOOOOOOO you can't delay Obama's judicial nominations! Republicans are racist! The "O" in GOP stands for obstructionist!" 2013: "Time to remove the judicial filibuster, boys. It's the only way to get our nominees through." 2020: "NOOOOO what do you mean Republicans have voted in a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court through bare minimum party line majorities! This is an abuse of power! The Court is invalid and corrupted! 2018: "Impeach Trump because of obstruction of Congress, something every President has done for the last 50 years but we choose now to act on it." 2022: "NOOOOOOO why is Ted Cruz saying the GOP will impeach Biden?? This is political brinksmanship!" YOU ARE HERE ——> 2022: “Guys I have a brilliant idea. Let’s get rid of the filibuster entirely for just one day, pass the voting rights act, then put it back in place.” 2024: “NOOOOOO what do you mean Republicans temporarily removed the filibuster to pass the National Abortion Ban Act, which passed 50-50 in the Senate with Vice President DeSantis breaking the tie? This is a gross violation of democracy and human rights! Republicans out here playing legislative games again! The minority party wasn’t even consulted!”
(Image removed from quote.)why is this a thing
https://twitter.com/aidnmclaughlin/status/1480977129932218375 "It may be time for a change candidate."
The Republican National Committee (RNC) alerted the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on Thursday that it plans to require GOP presidential nominees not to attend debates run by the commission going forward. "The RNC will initiate the process of amending the Rules of the Republican Party at our upcoming Winter Meeting to prohibit future Republican nominees from participating in CPD-sponsored debates," wrote Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel in the letter, which was obtained by The Hill. McDaniel said GOP voters "have lost trust" in the commission and noted that the RNC has proposed a number of reforms to the debate process."Unfortunately, neither the tone nor substance of your latest response inspires confidence that the CPD will meaningfully address the serious issues which the RNC has raised," she said. If the RNC moves to change its rules, the pullout would mark one of the greatest changes in the history of U.S. presidential debates, which the CPD has hosted for more than 30 years.
Fuck Hillary, we have a new queen.
Over the course of many years and many think pieces, the case against the filibuster has been laid out. Typically, critics of the Jim Crow relic invoke various historical facts (some of which have apparently been lost on, or willfully ignored by, certain critical members of the Senate), as well as an array of practical and prudential bases. Onto the pile, however fruitlessly, let us add another: The filibuster is a plot against Vice President Kamala Harris—to take away her constitutional right to vote.Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution makes it plain: Harris, as chair of the Senate, is given the responsibility to vote “when the Senate is equally divided.” In all the furor over the filibuster blocking voting rights legislation, keep in mind it is blocking Harris from this constitutional right, as well. The supermajority rule that ran counter to the Founders’ desires, now upheld by the filibuster’s status quo, is not just aiding in the disenfranchisement of voters by blocking meaningful voting rights legislation from passage—it’s also disenfranchising the woman sent to Washington to resolve the disputes of a divided Senate.It would be fitting if Harris, given the chance to gavel the filibuster out of existence to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, reclaimed her rights at the same time. She can put that to the Senate on January 17 when any rules changes are being considered—by starting with a declaration that the filibuster is not just unfair or undemocratic but unconstitutional, as well.
Harris, as chair, could reach the same conclusions. Rather than just hope a Senate majority uses the “nuclear option” to rid us of the filibuster, she could press the button. For the reasons above, she could declare the supermajority for cloture to be in conflict with Article I.She may fail in the attempt. A majority can overturn a ruling of the chair. It is not so easy even for some Democrats in the Senate to give up the filibuster. There are many, many other bills that the senators take up other than voting rights legislation. So individual senators are caught in a dilemma worthy of a class in game theory—though glad to remove it for A, they do not want to remove it for B, or maybe C, or maybe D, or maybe an unknown X that will arrive later in their six-year terms. So the filibuster remains in place forever—except now for the budget and for nominations to judgeships and political positions. In these two cases, the budget and nominations, there is no choice but to get rid of the filibuster or there would be institutional collapse of the courts and of the executive branch.However, with the John Lewis Act and Freedom to Vote Act, we are speaking about the institutional collapse of democracy itself. Protecting the integrity of federal elections from state interference is necessary to the integrity of the federal government—it is an obligation that is set forth in the original Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4. It is the only clause, the only text, that says Congress can override any state regulation of a federal election. Ever since 1787, Article I, Section 4 has been in there, the original nuclear option, to protect the national government from institutional collapse. It is an outrage to use the filibuster to block even the power of the national government to save itself. Surely that must have at least the same priority as enacting a budget by majority rule.Let the vice president show some muscle in defense of her country. Let the debate start on January 17 with a ruling from the chair that Rule 22 is in conflict with her own right to cast a vote when the Senate is evenly divided. Then let her dare the Senate to overrule her. To reclaim the right to vote in the blocked legislation, she should begin with reclaiming her own right to vote, as well.By a quirk of history, the plot against America is now also a plot against a Black woman’s right to vote. Who says the vice president has nothing to do?
https://twitter.com/newrepublic/status/1481592213452857346QuoteOver the course of many years and many think pieces, the case against the filibuster has been laid out. Typically, critics of the Jim Crow relic invoke various historical facts (some of which have apparently been lost on, or willfully ignored by, certain critical members of the Senate), as well as an array of practical and prudential bases. Onto the pile, however fruitlessly, let us add another: The filibuster is a plot against Vice President Kamala Harris—to take away her constitutional right to vote.Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution makes it plain: Harris, as chair of the Senate, is given the responsibility to vote “when the Senate is equally divided.” In all the furor over the filibuster blocking voting rights legislation, keep in mind it is blocking Harris from this constitutional right, as well. The supermajority rule that ran counter to the Founders’ desires, now upheld by the filibuster’s status quo, is not just aiding in the disenfranchisement of voters by blocking meaningful voting rights legislation from passage—it’s also disenfranchising the woman sent to Washington to resolve the disputes of a divided Senate.It would be fitting if Harris, given the chance to gavel the filibuster out of existence to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, reclaimed her rights at the same time. She can put that to the Senate on January 17 when any rules changes are being considered—by starting with a declaration that the filibuster is not just unfair or undemocratic but unconstitutional, as well.QuoteHarris, as chair, could reach the same conclusions. Rather than just hope a Senate majority uses the “nuclear option” to rid us of the filibuster, she could press the button. For the reasons above, she could declare the supermajority for cloture to be in conflict with Article I.She may fail in the attempt. A majority can overturn a ruling of the chair. It is not so easy even for some Democrats in the Senate to give up the filibuster. There are many, many other bills that the senators take up other than voting rights legislation. So individual senators are caught in a dilemma worthy of a class in game theory—though glad to remove it for A, they do not want to remove it for B, or maybe C, or maybe D, or maybe an unknown X that will arrive later in their six-year terms. So the filibuster remains in place forever—except now for the budget and for nominations to judgeships and political positions. In these two cases, the budget and nominations, there is no choice but to get rid of the filibuster or there would be institutional collapse of the courts and of the executive branch.However, with the John Lewis Act and Freedom to Vote Act, we are speaking about the institutional collapse of democracy itself. Protecting the integrity of federal elections from state interference is necessary to the integrity of the federal government—it is an obligation that is set forth in the original Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4. It is the only clause, the only text, that says Congress can override any state regulation of a federal election. Ever since 1787, Article I, Section 4 has been in there, the original nuclear option, to protect the national government from institutional collapse. It is an outrage to use the filibuster to block even the power of the national government to save itself. Surely that must have at least the same priority as enacting a budget by majority rule.Let the vice president show some muscle in defense of her country. Let the debate start on January 17 with a ruling from the chair that Rule 22 is in conflict with her own right to cast a vote when the Senate is evenly divided. Then let her dare the Senate to overrule her. To reclaim the right to vote in the blocked legislation, she should begin with reclaiming her own right to vote, as well.By a quirk of history, the plot against America is now also a plot against a Black woman’s right to vote. Who says the vice president has nothing to do? https://twitter.com/LoganDobson/status/1481743466891812864
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/supreme-court-blocks-president-bidens-vaccine-mandate-large-82255529(Image removed from quote.)HUAHUAHUAHUASupreme Court defending liberty! I know people that can continue to get work now.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices agreed with that argument, saying that the workplace safety rule for large employers was too broad to fall under the authority of the Department of Labor's Occupational Health and Safety Administration to regulate workplace safety."Covid-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather," the court's majority wrote."That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."
Thankfully I'm warm and vaccinated and don't have to deal with the winter of death!
The Biden administration even more than NY politics shows the failure of progressivism as an political force. So much catering to activists and the progressive caucus huahuahua. Get humbled you bubble living smug progs. I lick your tears. How ineffectual how nothing you do works nor commands respect.
Quote from: Himu on January 14, 2022, 09:40:42 AMThe Biden administration even more than NY politics shows the failure of progressivism as an political force. So much catering to activists and the progressive caucus huahuahua. Get humbled you bubble living smug progs. I lick your tears. How ineffectual how nothing you do works nor commands respect.I'm pretty sure I had to spend a lot of time a couple of years ago convincing you that even though the Democrats weren't progressive enough for you, you should still vote for them.
she will never win, enemies on all sides ideologically
The first chapter, ("The Themes of Agitation"), presents samples of an agitator's diatribe, which might be mistaken as "simply ... the raving of a maniac".[10] Generally agitators rely on core motifs, labeled as "Discontent", "The Opponent", "The Movement" and "The Leader".[11]"Social Malaise", the second chapter, examines how social malaise or discontent can be manipulated by converting perceived problems into grievances. The response to economic grievances is to say that "too much help is being extended to foreign nations”, that not only are "foreigners taking our money, they also threaten our jobs".[12] Political grievances are addressed by the call to action against international "commitments by the United States government [that] jeopardize political liberties."[12] Media outlets are the source of cultural grievances, and labeled "the enemies of the nation",[13] while other enemies are depicted as morally lax, "a crowd of Marxists, refugees, [and] left-wing internationalists."[12]The outer world is painted as hostile and filled with enemies in the third chapter ("A Hostile World"). The agitator positions himself as "a bone fide advocate of social change", but in doing so intentionally ”crystallizes and hardens these feelings” of hostility.[14] The remedy is his supposed superior knowledge, which he offers as a shield. He convinces his audience that it needs his guidance because they are victims, cheated by a "comprehensive and carefully planned political conspiracy".[15] He offers himself "a champion of democracy and Christianity", and as the only person who will solve grievances.[16]...Having provided his own definition for the causes of the social malaise, "as a would be leader of a popular movement" he sets goals for improvement in Chapter VII ("A Home for the Homeless"); however his solutions are found to be empty promises. His political or economic goals are motivated by little more than a desire "go one better than the government, his most dangerous competitor."[20]Followers are provided neither with hope nor positive ideas for change; agitation is historically distinguished by a complete lack of positive change. Chapter VIII ("The Follower") explains that adherents are made to believe the enemy will only be vanquished through means of a movement and by following the leader's dictates. External forces said to threaten American society are emphasized. The size of the movement is quantified, with claims that it consists "75% of the American people".[21] In Chapter IX ("The Leader") he positions himself as someone with special skills, whose interests support theirs, someone who is "one of the plain folk ... yet far above them."[22] Unlike Hitler or Mussolini, who broke with society and abandoned democratic, Chapter X ("Self-Portrait of the Agitator") shows how the American agitator "dares not repudiate established morality and democratic values".[22] Yet the themes, as exposed in the book, do "not prevent him from conveying the principal social tenets of totalitarianism."[22]In the closing chapter ("What the Listener Heard"), the authors discuss the listener's reactions. They view them as generally drawn to the idea of success, while against "bureaucrats, Jews, congressmen, plutocrats, communists ... He grumbles against the foreigners who come to this country and get good jobs."[23] Löwenthal and Guterman emphasize that American agitators have historically failed to gain traction and are usually marginalized. They warn, however, that under certain circumstances, such as loss of security for the middle class, America should contemplate the "possibility in which a situation will arise in which large numbers of people would be susceptible to his psychological manipulation".[24]
But the agitator also went beyond distraction and dissimulation. Reformers, Lowenthal and Guterman argued, framed complaints in rational terms and offered a plan of concerted action that would solve the underlying problems. Write to the management of the bus company, they might advise; raise the issue at the next meeting of the city council. Agitators, by contrast, encouraged followers to indulge in unreflective, spontaneous behavior: vilify immigrants; rail against crowded cities; claim that the routes were determined by “special interests.” As rituals of emotional catharsis, these outbursts may well have provided momentary relief, but at a high cost: the problem remained. Whatever energy that could have sustained a project of real reform had been uselessly dissipated. “Under the guise of a protest against the oppressive situation,” Lowenthal and Guterman explained, “the agitator binds his audience to it.” Instead of being dismantled, the conditions that needed to be changed were only reinforced. According to Prophets and in keeping with Horkheimer’s program of critical theory, then, the agitator’s platform was not only normatively objectionable but also inherently irrational. Demanding that foreigners speak English might make some passengers feel better, but it would not make the bus less crowded....Content analysis showed that this humiliation was a key component of the agitator’s material, but the method could not explain why such an apparently counterintuitive technique worked. Turning to psychoanalysis, Lowenthal and Guterman argued that, even as he labeled them “eternal dupes,” the agitator validated his followers’ self-identification as society’s misunderstood and forgotten. Through this constant refrain, the agitator transformed humiliation into a badge of masochistic honor and perceived alienation into a source of identity. What is more, by reinforcing what his audience already—if unreflectively—believed about themselves, the agitator seemed to offer a kind of cynical honesty: they may be suckers, but at least they know it.What about those who oppose the agitator? For him and his followers, there are no opponents—only enemies. Lowenthal and Guterman explore this conceit through careful study of the agitator’s ability to create a spiraling series of representations. From specific accusations against suspected communists the agitator turned to vague but emphatic claims that violent revolution was imminent; that communism was the “‘RED THREAD’” tying together journalism, global politics, international business, European courts, and the Catholic Church; and, finally, that communism was nothing but a “‘front’” for still-more-nefarious cabals. The agitator’s accusations became so nonspecific that they merged, enabling him to sermonize against the demonic “Communist Banker” who threatened all freedom-loving Americans. This composite was suited to the agitator’s purpose: by depicting enemies as at once strong and weak, cunning and unintelligent, disguised and identifiable, eternal and doomed, pulling the strings and yet never in power, this image convinced the agitator’s adherents that all who opposed them deserved punishment—and, moreover, that these enemies had it coming.Over and over again—at rallies, on the radio, and in print—the agitator’s audience took this message in. To some observers, the agitator seemed to cast a spell over his audience, to manipulate them with mass hypnosis. Lowenthal, Guterman, and their Frankfurt School colleagues understood the process differently: their analysis showed that the repetition of images and slogans wore down the listeners’ psychological defenses. Beginning with his first offer of temporary emotional relief from social malaise, the agitator encouraged his listeners to set aside autonomous, logical, evidence-based thought; he invited his followers into the realm of hostility, paranoia, and irrationality. Having undermined rational faculties from within, the agitator proceeded to impose an alternate reality of his own making, a world split by the existential distinction between friend and enemy, survival and death, strength and weakness. Whenever the agitator spoke, his followers heard the same message: “The world is an arena of a grim struggle for survival. You might as well get your share of the gravy.”In exchange for loyalty and submission, the agitator’s adherents were promised protection, guidance, and, especially, revenge. Soon, he continually assured his followers, government institutions and state power would be turned on the movement’s enemies: foreigners, immigrants, refugees, dissidents, and, especially, Jews. But this promise was only superficially political. At its core, the pledge addressed the malaise of the audience. The agitator never promised his followers direct access to power. Instead, they were to remain perpetual “watchdogs of order,” thrown the bone of witnessing the humiliation, degradation, and persecution of those outside the movement. Although there would be no real change—no resolution the problems behind social malaise—this violence would be “great fun.”
https://twitter.com/IAStartingLine/status/1482047697699938313This seems rather excessive.Would sharing this about the original way the flag was saluted be "unpatriotic commentary"?(Image removed from quote.)
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1482017236076445702 fight fight March 20th, 2020[close]
imagine championing dropping vaccine requirements.jfc
What next? My social security card to prove I'm a citizen?
Clinton got hacked again. https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1482035323853066245
Tulsi
So held Judge C. Darnell Jones II yesterday in Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.). He concluded plaintiffs lacked standing to change such a government declaration:QuoteJust because a plaintiff disagrees with the Government's actions, however, does not equate to discriminatory treatment…. Plaintiffs fail to identify any discriminatory impact they have personally experienced from Executive Order 2-21…. Plaintiffs fail to explain, and this Court fails to see, how they have been personally impacted and harmed through the renaming Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' day.He went on to say that in any event government speech of this sort doesn't violate Equal Protection Clause rights:QuoteBecause Executive Order 2-21 constitutes government speech, Plaintiffs, even if they had standing, could not bring a successful Equal Protection violation. The Third Circuit has held that, "[t]he Equal Protection Clause does not apply to government speech." Fields v. Speaker of Pa. H.R. (3d Cir. 2019). This is because "private citizens have no personal interest in government speech on which to base an equal protection claim."And he added:QuoteHere, Plaintiffs have failed to state any discriminatory impact they have personally experienced from the renaming of Columbus Day. As previously explained at length, Plaintiffs cannot claim that they have been prevented from celebrating either Christopher Columbus or Italian American heritage with the renaming of the holiday, and Plaintiffs can still, personally, refer to the holiday as Columbus Day. Though Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' renaming of Columbus Day wipes away recognition of Italian Americans in favor of Indigenous People, they fail to state any discriminatory impact that supports such a conclusion. Put simply, Plaintiffs do not provide this Court with any details as to how their lives have changed because of the renaming of the holiday. Without such proof, any Equal Protection allegation is futile.
Just because a plaintiff disagrees with the Government's actions, however, does not equate to discriminatory treatment…. Plaintiffs fail to identify any discriminatory impact they have personally experienced from Executive Order 2-21…. Plaintiffs fail to explain, and this Court fails to see, how they have been personally impacted and harmed through the renaming Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' day.
Because Executive Order 2-21 constitutes government speech, Plaintiffs, even if they had standing, could not bring a successful Equal Protection violation. The Third Circuit has held that, "[t]he Equal Protection Clause does not apply to government speech." Fields v. Speaker of Pa. H.R. (3d Cir. 2019). This is because "private citizens have no personal interest in government speech on which to base an equal protection claim."
Here, Plaintiffs have failed to state any discriminatory impact they have personally experienced from the renaming of Columbus Day. As previously explained at length, Plaintiffs cannot claim that they have been prevented from celebrating either Christopher Columbus or Italian American heritage with the renaming of the holiday, and Plaintiffs can still, personally, refer to the holiday as Columbus Day. Though Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' renaming of Columbus Day wipes away recognition of Italian Americans in favor of Indigenous People, they fail to state any discriminatory impact that supports such a conclusion. Put simply, Plaintiffs do not provide this Court with any details as to how their lives have changed because of the renaming of the holiday. Without such proof, any Equal Protection allegation is futile.
