• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle



  • It’s hardly possible to do worse

    There are about a million ways to do worse.

    For example, a U.S. president could send American ground troops into Gaza. Or recognize Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli territory. Or increase military aid to Israel tenfold. Or launch a preemptive military attack against Hezbollah. Or launch a ground attack against the Huthi rebels for firing rockets at Israel. Or increasing tensions with Iran for funding Hamas. Or round up suspected Hamas supporters in the U.S. and deport them. Or round up suspected Palestine supporters in the U.S. and hold them in indefinite detention. Or create a House Committee for Un-American Activities. Or bring back “enhanced interrogation” for questioning Americans suspected of un-American activities.

    The possibilities are really unlimited.

    This is like arguing that voting for Hitler as Reichskanzler wouldn’t be so bad, because at worst he would be doing the exact same thing as Kurt von Schleicher.

    But that’s the thing: things can always get worse. And Trump has proven time and time again that he’s willing to make things worse.




  • That’s because every single person who slights him even the tiniest bit was obviously always his enemy, and he obviously always knew this. Probably a RINO, a secret Democrat, a stealthy undercover deep state fake Republican. Very bad person, could not be trusted, in fact Trump barely knew them, they begged him for the job, but they simply weren’t up to it.

    Even if he praised that same person to high heaven just the day before.

    Evidence: the 263 people he hired and fired in the last administration (with the firing usually done via Twitter, when they were far away from wherever he was tweeting from).


  • Judges simply shouldn’t be nominated by one single person, particularly if that person is the de facto leader of his political party. And confirmation of judges simply shouldn’t be possible purely based on how many seats that same party holds in the Senate and, in a worst case scenario, without any kind of bipartisanship purely along party lines.

    Because that essentially means that Supreme Court judges are nominated and confirmed by the political parties.

    Apart from maybe a president being able to single-handed determining Supreme Court judges, almost any other system would be better. Including - as shitty as that would be - direct election of Supreme Court judges by the entire electorate.



  • Not at all.

    If you’re just whining about the Democrats because you think they’re too far to the right instead of whining about the Democrats because you think they’re too far to the left, then you can always vote in primaries, support better candidates, run for (even just local) office, campaign, phone bank, lobby your representatives, join one of the thousands of political pressure groups, work for a think tank, or do literally anything that’s more than just whining on the internet.



  • Why should Democrats want to permanently do away with the filibuster when they only ever had a razor thin majority and were facing an opposition hellbent on destroying the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and leaving 40 million Americans without health insurance?

    Last time voters gave Democrats a significant enough majority, they got the Affordable Care Act. If voters want Democrats to act decisively, all they need to do is give them a decisive majority.

    Voting for Republicans and then whining that Democrats get nothing done isn’t going to achieve anything.



  • One party got Obamacare done and is responsible that 40 million Americans who otherwise wouldn’t have health insurance are covered by the Affordable Care Act.

    The other side has sabotaged Obamacare in any kind of way possible, has blocked the Obamacare expansion to uninsured people in their own home states, has sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to eliminate Obamacare, has campaigned for 10 years against Obamacare, and came to within one single vote of eliminating Obamacare without any kind of replacement whatsoever.

    And here you are, telling us how both parties are the same.




  • Another thing of course is that the banks are unhappy with not getting their share in money laundering, crime investments and tax evasion, like they do with government currencies. Cryptocurrencies could also democratize organized crime and not just leave it to the established ties between politics, banks and existing crime groups.

    I’m not sure that “cryptocurrencies make it much easier for criminals to launder money, finance criminal enterprises, evade taxes and for organized crime to funnel dark money and into politics and corrupt politicians” is the kind of pro-cryptocurrency argument you seem to imply it is.