This is a good post, but unless there's a different clip you're referring to, you're misstating what Stewart said. He was talking about the right timing to use (what should be) powerful labels. The fact of the matter is most of the country is in category 2 right now. Using these labels now takes away their power later because people are not primed to take them seriously. Then, when we need to use them, the power is gone and everyone will tune out. He's waiting for the moment when there's enough of a shock from Trump's actions that using a powerful label can wake people up.
This is a pretty big promotion for a no-name former Republican congresswoman. Voters removed her from office in the last election, despite some pretty vicious mailers against her Democratic opponent, Janelle Bynum. Now that she's being gifted a job, she'll do as told.
Of course, then Bynum went and voted for Laken Riley.
Because CBS's parent company Paramount wants an acquisition by Skydance to be allowed by the government. It's extortion (or bribery, depending on your take).
They've killed about 50,000. There are 2,000,000 Palestinians in Gaza. Jordan and Egypt won't take them since it would seriously destabilize those countries, and it's not like the US will volunteer. Israel would have to implement a second Holocaust to enact this plan and I don't even think the Israeli public has the stomach for that.
The biggest Iraq War protest in the US (global protests don't matter for US policy) saw around 2% of the population turn out. If you were around at the time, you'll recall the war was relatively popular in the US at first, although the protests did help influence public sentiment.
The 2017 women's march had even less participation, around 1-1.5%.
You need around 3.5-5% to get real results.
I'm under no illusion the protests on Monday will make a difference in the short term. If they get large enough, they can begin to influence public sentiment. But if there's a major shock to the public psyche (something big enough to jar the people who don't follow the news awake), it means organizers at all levels will be prepared and ready to go.
Smaller protests have a purpose: meeting likeminded citizens and building your network. This may become very relevant in the future.
People can also be pushed to open their eyes when protests are frequent and grow in size over time. When 10 million people are in the streets, that's enough momentum to really change things.
And if we're just talking about sheer numbers, 10,000 people were enough to overwhelm Capitol security, and only about 2,000 people entered the building. I'm making no comment about whether or not that's desirable, just that people tend to overestimate the number of people required to be effective.
Interesting read. Basic conclusion from 2015 is that a presidential system is inherently flawed and systemic forces are pushing us toward repeated high-stakes crises. An accurate read of the situation at the time.
With that in mind, it's interesting that the author minimized the likelihood of a coup. The natural outcome of increased power in the executive, increased gridlock in Congress, historically low approval of Congress, and the expectation that presidents are held accountable by the citizenry for the state of the country (all things that were cited in the essay) is an executive who decides to bypass Congress in bigger and bigger ways in order to get things done.
What's a bit surprising is the majority in Congress supporting and welcoming that move.
As for the comment about death penalty states executing inmates more barbarically without these drugs: you can't control what other states do. You can only choose not to participate.
Before I read this, I thought maybe the proposal would be to stop hearing cases—period. General strike of the judiciary. Shut down all criminal and civil hearings in protest of the government ignoring its orders.
It's still fantasy, but it would be way more effective.
All those things can be true and it's still an argument on procedural grounds that loses the forest for the trees. Why were they fired? Was that firing legal? For example, the firings prima facie did not follow the statute that she cites about 30 days' notice. This slow judicial response has resulted in an almost complete inability for the system to effectively respond to internal threats over the last 8 years.
I don't care. Six months is an insane time frame relative to the impacts and is honestly feeding into Musk et al's narrative about government inefficiency. I understand a thorough audit takes time, but set a goal to release a preliminary report by end of March with an overview of major findings and then release the full report by June. But then they might have to work overtime...
Otherwise they might as well throw their report directly in the trash because it'll end up being the Mueller and Smith investigations all over again: too late to matter.
Sorry civil servants, you were fired so Trump could build the most expensive ballroom on the planet and the world's richest man could plunder even more corporate welfare for himself.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
That's cool. You're probably right, Elon. Better just shut down their payments and delete them from the system. I bet that'll go well for you.