FlowVoid

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't flatter yourself. If everyone who voted for a third party had voted for Harris instead, she still would have lost.

Leftists are too small a constituency to put Democrats over the top.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Turnout was at record highs. So the problem wasn't "activating low propensity voters".

The problem was that those voters were already activated, and they preferred Trump.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I replied to someone who just said leftists are right and liberals are wrong.

Ask them whether liberals are leftists.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (18 children)

Maybe liberals would take leftists more seriously if leftists could actually win an election.

They can't even elect one of their own as governor, much less president.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago

That sounds cruel!

If he's having a bad day, then personally I hope every day is the best day of the rest of his life.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Smells like... victory

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

how dumb America is.

Not to mention how dumb the UK, France, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Hungary, Finland, Croatia, and the Czech Republic are...

By the way, what country do you live in?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

can they do that? I thought federal officials superseded state ones?

Federal law supercedes state law. That doesn't mean federal officials can go where they want.

IIRC, the issue is that the Voting Rights Act gave DoJ the power to observe elections, but the SCOTUS partially nuked the VRA. So now it's not clear whether the DoJ still has that power, and the usual suspects are taking advantage of this ambiguity. Possibly hoping to give the SCOTUS a chance to nuke more of the VRA.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's not necessarily legal.

The judge hasn't ruled yet on whether Musk broke the law. He simply declined to issue a preliminary injunction.

A preliminary injunction tells someone to stop what they are doing while the court case plays out. In order to get a preliminary injunction, you have to convince a judge that there will be irreparable harm by letting someone continue.

In other words, a judge might rule against an injunction but nevertheless end up ruling against the defendant. Especially if the judge thinks the harm has already been done.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think most people would pay less. But opponents of universal health care would frame the payment as a tax (especially if it depends on income), and this could definitely erode support.

This is not a trivial problem, and I think it's why Democrats are hesitating to jump on board a supposedly "uncontroversial" policy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The point is that if Harris wins, then Hakeem Jeffries will likely be House Speaker on January 6

 

Ending the Gaza war: Three phase proposal

PHASE ONE

  • It would begin with a six-week ceasefire, during which the IDF would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza
  • Hamas would release "a number" of hostages - including women, the elderly and the wounded - in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Some remains of dead Israeli hostages would be returned to their families
  • Palestinian civilians would return to their homes in all areas of Gaza
  • Humanitarian assistance would "surge", with 600 trucks a day entering the strip, and hundreds of thousands of temporary housing units sent by the international community

During that six week period, negotiations mediated by the US and Qatar would continue. If successful, the next part of the plan would begin.

...

view more: next ›