CoggyMcFee @ CoggyMcFee @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

533

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think you replied to the wrong post

I think the very important point you’re missing is that schools did not exist in fear of school shootings before Columbine. There were no lockdown drills and crazy security measures for entering and leaving the building. So making a big loud noise would not make people instantly think someone was shooting up the school like it very well might today.

“You” and “thou” come from different roots. They are not simply different orthographies like “ye” and “the”.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/thou

https://www.etymonline.com/word/you

https://english.stackexchange.com/a/18629

If "literally" means "figuratively," then we literally have no word for "literally."

It’s worth pointing out that you just used the word for “literally” and we knew which sense of the word you meant through context. Just like the verb “dust” can mean to put a layer of small particles on something but can also mean to remove the small particles from something. Humans are able to sort these things out.

However, one of the best things about language is that if a need actually arises for more clarity about “literalness”, a solution will naturally emerge to address it.

Even the word “literal” started out as a word that pertained specifically to the written word, and scholarly things, and its sense evolved to refer to things not necessarily written down, to the present meaning of “the most straightforward interpretation of what I’m saying”. A need arose and a word filled the need.

I’ve always wondered why so many people have this reaction, rather than seeing it as a cool thing that languages can do. Namely, taking bits from other languages and making them into something new.

They aren’t in charge of Congress, who actually makes laws (i.e. the crucial one here) or the Supreme Court (maybe you noticed this at some point?)

It would help if you could give an example of a safeguard or two that is within Biden’s power to put in place. The only actions I can think of (that couldn’t be instantly reversed by a new president) all depend on Congress, which makes them virtually impossible. But maybe there is something I am not thinking of?

shit is not better because Democrats got voted in and we should demand more out of our leaders

You call a Republican majority in the House “Democrats voted in”? Do you call a 50-50 split Senate with Manchin to be “Democrats voted in”? How about we give them enough people in Congress to accomplish big things before throwing up our hands in exasperation that they didn’t accomplish enough. They need enough of a majority in the House and Senate that one or two rogue Democrats trying to make a name for themselves can’t derail anything and everything they want.

Why would someone downvote you. This is 100% true. Congress makes the laws. The president can set the agenda but things can only happen if there are enough people in Congress who will actually vote for it. Since we know 0 Republicans will ever help with anything, that means the Democrats need enough of a majority to overcome the GOP, and enough of a majority that one or two rogue Democrats looking to advance their own profile can’t hold it hostage. We had that for a brief time in the Obama admin and they passed the ACA. During the Biden admin Manchin alone could make a name for himself by blocking anything and everything.

It’s a crappy system where you have to control both houses with some breathing room, and the presidency, to get something done if one party decides to stonewall everything. But that’s the reality. Our system of government has serious problems.

However, assuming that the Democratic presidents are privately glad they can’t do most things they say they want to do, when they are never given the opportunity, and then using that assumption as the basis for cynicism, seems unreasonable. What do you gain by assuming this? Why not work as hard as we can to give them a real actual opportunity, and then see what happens.

It’s like I’m wiping a marker

It’s because the two-party system is a systemic problem. Our winner-take-all voting system always punishes similar candidates, so if similar groups don’t form a coalition and choose a single candidate to run for them, they will cannibalize each other and surely lose. So, you inevitably end up with two parties each representing all the factions on one side of the spectrum.

As a result, anybody on the national level who decides to run as a third party candidate (a) doesn’t understand our voting system, (b) is just doing it for the publicity, or (c) is out of their mind.

If we had a different voting system that did not punish similar candidates (like ranked choice), not only would quality third parties be possible, they would be inevitable.

I agree about Hillary but disagree about Biden. His reelection campaign was extremely unpopular (and rightly so) because of his obvious decline in health, but I disagree that a Biden speech will be ill-received now that he’s made the historic sacrifice for the good of the country and passed the torch. I think his speech at the DNC will be a very positive moment.

As you imply, you pretty much have to have a Biden moment, so we’ll just see how it goes (and I hope I’m right!)

I don’t know if this is true everywhere, but I can say my elementary school kid and friends all say “search it up”, and although they have school-issued Chromebooks and use Google for search, I can’t actually recall ever hearing them say “google it”.

And weird as hell

They also had GOP-proof control of government for only about 3-4 months, in which they were just barely able to push through major healthcare reform. Then the Tea Party wave came in and the Republicans made it their mission in life to prevent Obama from having any successes, ever.

It’s impossible to know, but I suspect some are trolls and bots, and some aren’t.

I just want to make sure the people in the back are aware of this too, because I’ve heard lots of people complain that the Dems didn’t do things in the past four years that they would need real control to do

If we want that then it’s not enough to just get Harris into office. We’ve got to win Congress. And we’ve got to win enough of the Senate that any would-be Manchins can’t stop everything. That’s the only way to pass meaningful legislation.

You know what really bothers me @JDVance, is when you attack a fellow veterans military service. I respect your service and the service of @GovTimWalz and all of those honorably discharged. He was eligible for retirement after 24 years and submitted his retirement paperwork before his unit received orders (or even warning orders) to deploy and then he continued his service as a member of congress. If they needed him to stay in his unit there is a mechanism called, “stop-loss.” Look it up. As a corporal with 4yrs of service, I highly doubt the USMC, “asked,” you to go to Iraq. They most likely, “ordered” you to go to Iraq and had you refused, you would have been thrown in the brig. Release your military record to prove the USMC, “asked” you to go. “Raise your hand if you want to go to Iraq.” It’s laughable to those of us who have served. If you win, you are next in line to be Commander in Chief and need to earn the respect of all who serve, and this is not how you do it.

https//x.com/StationCDRKelly/status/1821329527429329315