abff08f4813c @ abff08f4813c @j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us

Posts

5

Comments

1,044

Joined

11 mo. ago

trump wants to stop them cuz Biden did it …

Generally speaking, this is exactly on point. If the GOP guy wins, he'll stop the program that Biden launched.

Then he'll work with the big rich companies to create a new program that has his name on it, that's even bigger and worse.

The fossil fuel companies want trump to keep it because it’s making them so much money while they’ve set recording breaking production the last two years…

Wait, so the fossil fuel companies want to keep Biden's push to replace fossil fuels? Because it's been making them money?

Actually, that's good. If even the fossil fuel companies want them replaced...

Republicans and moderates have lowered the bar so much since Jimmy Carter, that you can’t even remember what a Dem candidate is supposed to look like

My answer: AOC

I'm banking all my hope on Harris winning, and then Dems either take the House and hold onto the Senate, or more likely Dems retake the Senate in 2026 and also keep the House then.

Once that happens, they can drop the filibuster, and then pass the 127 DC States plan, which would allow them to pass constitutional amendments to fix this once and for all, https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Edit: Worth nothing that the reason for the Dems shift to the right is due to the how the Electoral College works, and which would require a constitutional amendment to abolish.

What's outrageous is that this is being treated as news, when it's not new, e.g. (from 2021) https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

We've known this that since at least 2001, if not earlier, https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/09/the-trickle-down-economics-straw-man/

Alas, Wikipedia has a good explanation on this point, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreignagent#UnitedStates

in 1980, the court ruled that receiving "bona fide subsidy" from a foreign source does not render the recipient as a foreign agent unless the foreign direction or control is established.
the grants which it received were linked to specific programs it should have carried out, thus, it fell under "request".
appellate court found that even the identical leadership and the financial connection were not sufficient to grant summary judgement and a full trial was required since mere provision of funds was insufficient

If that's right, then it seems the question here then whether Russia was just giving money to keep afloat influencers who would have gone with this nonsense anyways, or if Russia had more direct control via request making.

I suspect it's the second one, but it seems a full trial would be needed to prove it, and I can imagine the handlers being really good at making sure there was never any paperwork to use as evidence that "requests" were made.

I don't get it. He was okay with endorsing Biden back in 2020 after taking ownership in 2018. So why skip the endorsement now?

I can't speak for the other commenter but my interpretation is agreement - "Yup, we tried it in Seattle
and hey, guess what? It works!"

Here are some examples of "other software" that does compute this.

Mbin still reports the raw reputation score, e.g. https://fedia.io/u/@henfredemars@infosec.pub

Piefed instead reports an attitude percentage, e.g. https://piefed.social/u/henfredemars@infosec.pub

Both do so without requiring an account.

The problem is that it's the FEC who's responsible, and they're constantly deadlocked at 3-3 which renders them toothless in terms of enforcement.

(The way I'd fix this is to have a new law passed allowing a "President's representative" who the President appoints to the FEC - without need for confirmation - as the 7th member, and who automatically resigns when the President leaves office. This 7th member can break the deadlock.)

Anyways, it seems like Musk has no way to verify that the winners are actually going to vote Red. Here's hoping that the vast majority that he gets signed up end up turning out for Harris instead.

He doesn't really want to do that though. Much more useful to Putin to stay in and keep trying to throw wrenches into the works and such.

Same reason why Russia tried to join NATO back in the 1950s

Agreed in full. I'm happy with the majority of the majority btw - that wasn't an angle I had considered originally.

Actually, not exactly the same, as in 2022 Ukraine was generally recognized as a fully independent country when it was invaded. Whereas, generally countries do not get involved when another country deals with a matter within its own internal territory... thus Taiwan's current situation is more precarious in some ways.

Being the remains of another government that originated from another area has, in a lot of ways, hurt the people of Taiwan.

I am starting to lean into the view that Garland would have been a better Supreme Court justice than US Attn General.

On the one hand, he's richer. On the other hand, when he decided he didn't want to buy Twitter after all, even his lawyers couldn't get him out of that one.

I hope they dig into why this happened. The campaign apologized, but they need to be able to give assurances that it won't happen again.

“Our campaign regrets this action and its impact on Dr. Ghanim and the community, and he is welcome at future events."

I think that's what makes the Russian Federation's actions so bad. With the situation being as dire in Gaza as it is right now, every scrap of edible nutrition that is allowed to make it in counts.

The Russian Federation may not be a friend of Israel, but clearly they aren't going to do any good for Palestine either.

Wonder if it will work out like Teamsters where individual editors and groups within the Times start endorsing Harris.

Same. In terms of the mechanics of getting this fixed (abolishing the Electoral College), I'm partial to following the guide presented in https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

But also open to other ideas.

It really is worth remembering that the Electoral College was designed the way it is to support slavery: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

The TLDR here is that this gave the South more voting power because they could partially count the non-voting slaves in coming up with the number of electors. And since the slaves couldn't vote, the elector system allowed their masters to essentially steal their 3/5s of a vote.

In fact, the main reason for the Electoral College was slavery. It's another holdover from a past that should have been long ago discarded.

The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise
With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/ (or https://archive.is/YnSkW )

TLDR to save you from a wall of text - we seem to agree on at least 99% and I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about anymore.

you might see that this was probably death by a million paper cuts.

Yes, I can easily see that being the case for that user.

Yeah this a wall of text. To be honest I can’t really spend my already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone who ignores relevant points I raise.

False premise? If you read it you'd have seen that I did not ignore those points but either agreed with or responded to each of them. Edit: So, while I certainly have no right to tell you what you should do with your time, perhaps it's still possible that you can find a way to spend your "already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone [who acknowledges] relevant points" that you raised.

In this case, I addressed the ban reason given, and yet you try to argue more about it as though I didn’t.

So this is a bit odd. I disagreed with Monk on a lot, but I never felt that his responses to me ever became uncordial.

Between you and me, it sounds like we maybe agree on 95% or 99% of the points. And yet, somehow this convo seems to be the one taking a more unfriendly turn.

Anyways, I wasn't arguing about the ban reason but attempting clarify that I was speaking against one particular thing w/o disagreeing with the rest.

If you cared about more than disputing me,

Sorry, I have a second wall of text you'd have to read. But in that I list out a lot of the different things I care about, and also the why.

Edit: I guess one might also ask why I spent so much time discussing this with you. Well, in fact, you're exactly the type of person that the fediverse needs to be encouraging. Your script was useful, and I'm sure you'll come up with many more greater and brilliant things as you spend more time on the fediverse. Basically, the fediverse needs you and more folks like you, so I was trying to turn around an engagement that might have started off the wrong foot around into a more positive one.