It was also only based upon a DOJ memo of some sorts for a long time. The "Supreme Court"'s recent decision though makes it seem like the only legal remedy for an active criminal president is to impeach and then convict and remove them first.
Eh I'm fine with them not attending. Let him speak to a half empty chamber. Bonus points if they spend the time organizing or rallying elsewhere.
The dude relies on you following rules of decorum while he himself breaks every single rule. Why should Democrats play his game? It's extremely likely that it was mostly Republicans watching the thing anyway.
In order to have one party's job be the "protector", you need another party that is the villain.
Democrats should exist outside of bad Republican governance. They should have a distinct vision of what society should look like.
Say what you will about these fascists and they're garbage, but they still think it's possible to change the country rather than settling for "protecting us" from the opposition.
I would argue that the "protecting us from Republicans" thing is largely what they've been campaigning on for basically ten years now, and it's been an abysmal failure.
You've basically gone so "anti-liberal" that you wound up arguing the liberal position.
Man I'm a huge critic of Democrats (especially lately) and have called on them for "do their job" as politicians, but even I know that it's laughingly obvious they can't "protect us from Republicans" when they have control of zero branches of government, and also....that isn't their job even if they had control of government.
EDIT:
"The job" of legislators without a majority and no control over legislative sessions is to listen to their constituents, organize their constituents, draft policy for when they're in the majority, and to vocalize and exercise their opposition within the chamber they're in whether through votes, speeches during committee, or speeches on the floor.
"The job" of legislators with a majority and control over legislative sessions is to listen to their constituents, propose, vote on, and pass policy that their constituents want.
Nowhere in the job description of being an effective legislator is there a part where they are to "protect us" from anyone. They aren't fucking security, and they should exist outside of opposition lines and should be defining the policies to get us out of the messes that their opposing party is getting us into. They should be vehicles for changing policy to solve problems for the people that sent them there...not serving as a wafer-thin protective layer between the public and the policies and politicians for which the public purportedly voted.
The only people willing to watch Trump spew two hours of straight lies are Trump supporters and political correspondents (and the large amount of overlap).
I have only a finite time on this pale blue dot, and I am definitely not going to spend more of it listening to what a walking combination of McDonald's characters (i.e. Mayor McCheese, Hamburgler, Grimace, and Ronald) has to say about the state of a country he's constantly trying to run into the ground.
Sorry, money they're actually willing to spend at a store.
Billionaires can't buy anything at stores, after all "IT's NOt LIQuID". 😜
PS: I know that they can buy shit at stores with their lifetime loans while keeping their assets 100% intact, but what billionaire is going to shop regularly at Target?
This is true, but I'm unclear on what the last authorization of force -- that was hastily passed by Congress during whatever crisis or whatever lull between crises preemptively -- authorizes the prezzy to do without a war declaration.
Congress has continually abdicated its position as a co-equal branch of government.
Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit.
The first economist says to the other "Ill pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says "l pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
It didn’t have to be this way; in a different kind of society it could have been a boon to everyone.
Please continue to espouse this viewpoint even under serious argument from those opposing it. Technology isn't inevitably shit. There are other types of software we can write, and other types of technology we can develop that isn't the result of some sweaty CTO hovering over our shoulders demanding that we make the world shittier for the sake of the shareholders.
We have to imagine the worlds we could've created through better choices. We have to imagine that we can change the course of things.
The overwhelming majority of software ever written is fucking terrible and causes more problems than it solves.
Since software is easily copiable and mutable, that small sliver of good software gets replicated all over the place and serves as a foundation for other software, both good -- and at the risk of repeating myself -- and mostly bad.
People would be better off considering new tech as the tool it is rather than seeing every piece of software as inherently better than the thing it replaces.
This is just the fucking around stage. He inherited relative stability, and like eating a large meal quickly we haven't quite caught up yet and had time to feel the impacts. The finding out stage is gonna be brutal. I expect we'll be dealing with unending, Trump-caused crises when it starts to hit.
Maybe the opener is a financial crisis? He doesn't seem to give a shit about the economy anymore.
The laffer curve absolutely does have to do with trickle down. It's the pseudoscience backing for lowering the top tax rates. It starts off with the lie that that'll actually result in an increase of revenue, even when that's laughably untrue -- which is evidenced by the fact that the government has never been as broke as when it has continued to pursue this disastrous form of tax policy.
The thing about the Laffer curve is that...yes obviously you cannot tax 100% of everyone's paycheck and expect that the economy will grow, and yes obviously taxing everyone 0% will result in 0 revenue...these obvious things are obvious. But the rates in between have fairly straightforwardly predictable effects on revenue, and even adding a tax bracket where you take 100% of the income above a certain level is not one of the ends of the laffer curve, because the effective tax rate for those earners is still not 100%...because tax brackets exist.
One implication of the Laffer curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. Particularly in the United States, conservatives have used the Laffer curve to argue that lower taxes may increase tax revenue.
Dude, I was watching live coverage of the 01/06 proceedings and saw the early breakouts of the problem and then the devolution of it.
Wanna know why I was watching such a boring, non-event? Because everyone with a Twitter account, the ability to read, and a pulse knew that Trump's supporters absolutely were going to try something on 01/06.
If I knew there was a good enough probability that something would go down that I was watching live coverage of what's typically not even something anyone ever talks about, the event was completely and utterly predictable.
It was also only based upon a DOJ memo of some sorts for a long time. The "Supreme Court"'s recent decision though makes it seem like the only legal remedy for an active criminal president is to impeach and then convict and remove them first.