It’s not “fine”, but it’s also not him acting outside his authority. Fuck, who was the last president that didn’t bomb anywhere without Congress declaring war? Who was the last president to even get Congressional approval before all bombings? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t in the last 25 years.
“Trump does thing that other presidents, both Democrat and Republican have done without issue in the past” is poor grounds for an impeachment.
Given the price and description, I was always assuming they were going to import a cheap Chinese android phone from a no-name manufacturer and then do the gold paint here and call it Made in the USA, like how other companies do one final assembly step here in order to make that claim.
They admitted they are not factual, and thus are not news.
More specifically there was a case where a Fox News “reporter” was asked to do a story on something and what they saw did not match the narrative at all, they refused to play along and were fired for not telling the story the network wanted to tell. They sued, and the argument from Fox was that only the shows literally called the news were news and had any need to be truthful, everything else is opinion or entertainment and thus could lie as much as they wanted. If you look at their current schedule, I’m pretty sure “news” is down to the 11PM Fox News @ Night, the closest anything else gets is being “geared towards” news.
You say that like 3rd parties being created and taking federal offices happens all the time.
They aren’t, and that’s kinda the point. People grossly underestimate how hard it is to do this (pretending it’s some great unknown and not something that’s been tried and failed literally dozens of times), and what game theory regarding FPTP elections means for the rise of one.
We haven’t had a serious 3rd party, let alone one that takes federal office, for well over 100 years.
We had a few elected to Congress in the last hundred years, even if you don’t count ones who changed party at some point. Mostly Farmer-Labor Party between the late 20s and end of WW2. We also had a Conservative Party of New York candidate in Congress in the 70s. And a Libertarian if you do count people who convert while in office. Hell, Trump once tried to run for POTUS as a third party candidate in 2000 for the Reform Party, but failed miserably and didn’t win a single state during the primaries.
Don’t pretend you know what it takes, because we haven’t even fucking tried. It’s uncharted water!
How many parties do you think we have that are large enough they operate in multiple states and have ballot access right now? The answer is a dozen. All of which have hopes of eventually getting someone in federal office, you know aside from the Dems and GOP who already do that. Of those twelve, 9 ran a presidential candidate in 2024. You’ve probably only even heard of 4 of those at most (Harris, Trump, Stein and maybe Chase Oliver [Libertarian]).
What it takes at a minimum is getting a majority of a state or House district on board with you and willing to vote for you rather than a major party, knowing that if enough other people don’t buy in it’s going to let the candidate farthest from them win instead. If you’re pushing for POTUS, then it means getting about 78M people on board in the same way, distributed across most of the country.
Third parties running for federal office isn’t untested water, it’s just extremely difficult to succeed at. Again, that’s why the Tea Party operated as a reform movement within the GOP rather than being an actual third party - it let them hijack the political machinery of the party from within, instead of having to fight against it in a battle that would at most likely cause both to lose if it did anything at all. Literally, had the Tea Party been an actual third party then instead of gaining massive influence they would have at their most powerful caused Democrats to win by splitting the GOP vote.
Did you literally wake up from a coma the day Biden’s cancer diagnosis was announced or something? Or are you the rare person who isn’t part of Trump’s cult but also only watches right wing news sources?
“President Trump shits on Constitution in novel way!” could paraphrase a headline from literally any week this year after 1/20. And only after 1/20 because before then he was merely President-Elect Trump.
Beyond that, the news cycle is pretty short - for example, unless we have revelations about Trump sexually assaulting a woman we didn’t already know about or some movement in an existing court case, it’s not going to continue to be litigated in the news media because there’s nothing new to say.
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
It usually requires a competent and well-known politician storming out of their party for ideological differences, but being locally popular enough to win their seat as an independent or new party.
It also usually causes the party they broke off from to lose higher offices a few times because the two sides of the schism don’t have enough power individually to win the bigger contests. Until one of them swallows the other.
The right avoided this by doing their “reform” from within, aka the Tea Party.
hey want to drag the nation back about a century. Women without a vote, black people again as slaves,
Neither of those was the case a century ago. Literally closer to two centuries than one for black folks since slavery (160 years since the 13th Amendment to be more exact) and women’s suffrage is also over a century old if you count it starting at the 19th Amendment as opposed to any period where it was up to the states.
You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who’s going to be in office soon.
The way I always explain it to people - take any additional government power or access to information you either don’t care about or actively support. Now imagine whoever you oppose/hate the most taking office and trying to use that against your interests. Are you still OK with them having that power? Same principle applies regardless of what power or who’s pushing for it.
It’s like due process - you don’t want any category of alleged violation not to be subject to due process, and if you don’t understand why then it’s time to wrongfully accuse you of doing that so you understand the problem.
If a theory and every attempt at real world application of a theory yield wildly different results, shouldn’t that suggest something in the theory is deeply flawed?
Really it’s actually capitalism that supposes people are too dumb to make their own choices or know how a business is run, and thus shouldn’t have say over company choices.
Really it’s actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy, because no one forces businesses to be started as “dictatorships run by bosses that effectively have unilateral control over all choices of the company” other than the people starting that business themselves. You can literally start a business organized as a co-op (which by your definitions is fundamentally a socialist or communist entity) - there’s nothing preventing that from being the organizing structure. The complaint instead tends to be that no one is forcing existing successful businesses to change their structure and that a new co-op has to compete in a market where non-co-op businesses also operate.
If co-ops were a generally more effective model, you’d expect them to be more numerous and more influential. And they do alright for themselves in some spaces. For example in the US many of the biggest co-ops are agricultural.
Yeah, wasn’t trolling. They literally start a court case against the property to determine if that property was used in or purchased through the proceeds of a crime, and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. Hiring a lawyer to defend your property against the allegation it was bought with drug money or w/e often costs more than replacing it would. Which is the point.
The term used for it in law enforcement is “civil asset forfeiture”. For her to get it back, her property is going to have to get a lawyer to defend that it is probably not used in a crime or purchased with funds obtained through criminal activity. Doing that is not cheap.
They got a majority of votes. Unless you live in a deep blue area it’s likely to get you more customers than it costs, at least for now. Most customers won’t care either way, they’re at your business to buy your goods/services, not as a political statement.
Those signs will go down fast except for the very political and deep red areas once we’re in a post-Trump world.
You’re not wrong. There’s nothing that requires the two parties be Dems and GOP. But you’re not going to overturn one or the other in a single election, and that means losing to the farthest big party from you, likely a few in a row, while that gets resolved. Especially if you try to do it top down instead of building support from local/county offices up.
Basically, if you could get enough third party support, you could either supplant one of the existing parties or force them to shift to stay competitive. The argument is that trying to do so with the office of president when doing so promotes a fast track to outright fascism is a painfully bad tactic.
What exactly does “should” mean in this context?
I think the implication is that it’s essentially being prevented from collapse because it’s so ingrained in international trade that if it were to collapse it would hurt you and your allies too much, so you don’t allow it to collapse when it otherwise might.
Another reminder that blueMAGA don’t see Palestinians as human.
Every option with any real chance of being elected supported Israel. Unfortunately your choices are essentially Dem, GOP, or one of several people who is definitely going to lose unless you can round up another 60 million or so voters to back them.
Specifically to have that conversation - there is no connection whatsoever between “earned their money” and “has views I agree with” or even “has non-harmful views.” At least Notch doesn’t do worse than occasionally tweet what he thinks.
You grossly underestimate just how shitty people can be. Which is wild given what’s going on in gestures wildly.
For one, because the misconduct named in the impeachment is something every president in the 21st century at least has done (military strikes with congressional approval), which makes it a lot harder to justify it as an impeachable offense to people more concerned with law than finding any excuse to try to punish Trump.