She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
We'll see. But the hypocrisy she displayed by accepting the nomination given her arguments against the Garland nomination in 2016 does not bode well in my opinion.
I do hope but am not totally confident that the impact on established law like the Affordable Care Act and Roe-vs-Wade won't be significant, since even Conservatives justices are usually reluctant to overturn old precedent. However, the impact on new legislation will probably be severe. E.g. the new court may not overturn Obamacare now, but any similar new legislation will be in trouble.
Unfortunately - ACB has repeatedly made statements that she doesnt view stare decisis as being as important as other judges. Stare decisis is the idea that you leave established precedent in place, regardless of how you feel about it.
It seems she subscribes to the idea that bad precedent (in her view) can and should be overturned when necessary. We can also glean from her past that she isnt sympathetic to either the ACA or RvW. It's not hard for one to come to the conclusion that she probably views those as bad precedent, and would be less reticent to overturn them than other justices.
Here's another interesting article from Politico. It attempts to explain why Democrats didn't do as well as they thought they were going to. Well worth a read...
It reminds me of a similar article talking about some Senate losses for the Democratic party, pointing out that the messaging wasn't tailored to local needs and was more focused on national politics.
The lack of in-person canvassing due to COVID seems especially crushing. When you're not going door-to-door because you don't want to spread the virus, you're missing out on data you could use to better win elections. I'm guessing the GOP didn't have as many concerns about door-to-door legwork, and that would have given them an advantage in targeting.
It reminds me of a similar article talking about some Senate losses for the Democratic party, pointing out that the messaging wasn't tailored to local needs and was more focused on national politics.
The lack of in-person canvassing due to COVID seems especially crushing. When you're not going door-to-door because you don't want to spread the virus, you're missing out on data you could use to better win elections. I'm guessing the GOP didn't have as many concerns about door-to-door legwork, and that would have given them an advantage in targeting.
It's worth pointing out that Biden won pretty handily without an real in-person events to draw enthusiasm whatsoever (aside from a couple drive-in events with Obama late in the game). Trump was holding rallies on daily basis. God only knows how many lives Biden saved by taking his approach and Trump cost with his. It's really impossible to measure, but we can be assured it more than one going each way. Which frankly tells you all you need to know about who SHOULD be President between the two of them.
It reminds me of a similar article talking about some Senate losses for the Democratic party, pointing out that the messaging wasn't tailored to local needs and was more focused on national politics.
The lack of in-person canvassing due to COVID seems especially crushing. When you're not going door-to-door because you don't want to spread the virus, you're missing out on data you could use to better win elections. I'm guessing the GOP didn't have as many concerns about door-to-door legwork, and that would have given them an advantage in targeting.
It's worth pointing out that Biden won pretty handily without an real in-person events to draw enthusiasm whatsoever (aside from a couple drive-in events with Obama late in the game). Trump was holding rallies on daily basis. God only knows how many lives Biden saved by taking his approach and Trump cost with his. It's really impossible to measure, but we can be assured it more than one going each way. Which frankly tells you all you need to know about who SHOULD be President between the two of them.
Ironically, I would claim that Trump effectively rallied for both of them. His unhinged rants during those events mobilized both his base and his opponents.
Like 66% of the people that voted for Biden said they did it as a vote against Trump rather than a vote for Biden.
That's why while so many voted for Biden for but didn't vote for down ballot Democrats, many of which were nigh indistinguishable from corporate Republicans anyway.
Like 66% of the people that voted for Biden said they did it as a vote against Trump rather than a vote for Biden.
That's why while so many voted for Biden for but didn't vote for down ballot Democrats, many of which were nigh indistinguishable from corporate Republicans anyway.
Some downballot democrats were progressive, and not all of them did as well as Biden. I'm sure plenty of people voting for Biden were voting against Trump, but we need to understand that this wasnt some progressive wave that washed Trump away. It was everyone but the hard right. The scary part is that so few conservative moderates remain.
Ilhan Omar can afford to be as progressive as she wants and still have a 40 point cushion to work with because her district is basically Minneapolis. 4 hour drive to the northwest, a 30-year incumbent couldn't even survive her being the focal point of the saturation level TV ads of his opponent without getting blown out.
Unlike some states, Minnesota isn't gerrymandered to death (the Districts approach something like actual reasonable shapes on a map). The rural areas are really rural, and the urban areas likewise in their direction.
Amy Coney Barrett's earliest rulings are already putting lives at risk, striking down COVID restrictions on the grounds of religious freedom. Pro-life is a misleading term when your ideology is about endangering people. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
The argument is that the law was unequal because *some* secular places were subject to lower restrictions than churches, despite the fact that other secular places were shut down *entirely* when churches were not.
The law was tweaked based on the way each venue contributed to COVID risks, and church services are higher risk environments than most. Having a whole crowd of people singing at the same time in an enclosed space and mingling closely before and after for over an hour is going to spread an airborne virus a lot fast than people quietly slipping in and out of, yes, a liquor store in a slow trickle over the course of a day. But saying "churches are being treated harsher than liquor stores" is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they simply don't pose equal risks for spreading COVID--and I say this as a person who frequently discourages people in my life from drinking alcohol.
I was talking to some folks in a Discord server about the alt right movement and a friend of mine with alt right views, and they seemed to think there was insight in the words. I thought I'd show it here:
"It's one of the interesting things about political beliefs. People are not just motivated by their love of the truth; any belief that makes them feel good is a belief that people will cling to. The whole premise of free speech is that people will choose the best of the free marketplace of ideas, but that's just not how humans work.
My former friend takes active joy in looking down on other people. Every meeting we ever had, he was cracking some joke about the folks he looked down on--it made him happy; it made him laugh; it made him smile. For a lot of disaffected folks on the Internet, certain beliefs make them feel good about themselves.
And there's no better way to make someone feel good about themselves than to tell them that they're inherently superior to vast groups of people.
And yet that's the entire basis for the concept of free, unrestricted speech: the notion that ordinary people are motivated by the search for the truth. And it's false. People aren't innately curious scientists who only want to learn. People do things that make them feel good, and people will gleefully absorb an idea that makes them feel good, even if it's crazy and even if it's toxic. It's why memes and jokes and YouTube videos make up so much of alt right discourse. It's why trolling is such a prized part of the alt right movement, and why white supremacists gravitate towards the movement. It's not about thinking; the alt right is about having fun. It's about laughing at people and feeling superior and being entertained."
Amy Coney Barrett's earliest rulings are already putting lives at risk, striking down COVID restrictions on the grounds of religious freedom. Pro-life is a misleading term when your ideology is about endangering people. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
The argument is that the law was unequal because *some* secular places were subject to lower restrictions than churches, despite the fact that other secular places were shut down *entirely* when churches were not.
The law was tweaked based on the way each venue contributed to COVID risks, and church services are higher risk environments than most. Having a whole crowd of people singing at the same time in an enclosed space and mingling closely before and after for over an hour is going to spread an airborne virus a lot fast than people quietly slipping in and out of, yes, a liquor store in a slow trickle over the course of a day. But saying "churches are being treated harsher than liquor stores" is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they simply don't pose equal risks for spreading COVID--and I say this as a person who frequently discourages people in my life from drinking alcohol.
Find a way around it. This idea that the SCOTUS is the 'supreme' power in this country is ludicrous. Annoy the living shit out of them by changing something in the law/decree that appeases their argument without outright capitulating and force them have to rule again. Multiple times if need be. Waste their fucking time on penny-ante bullshit. Nobody ever really takes them on. It's high time the Supreme Court was taken off their high-horse anyway. Equal branches my ass...
freakin' Gorsuch wrote that the restrictions on in person churches were bad because a bicycle shop didn't have the same restrictions. What a bad faith argument, pun intended. There aren't hundreds of people congregating in bicycle shops are there?
Here's an article that describes exactly what I'm talking about. Too bad Congress is spineless, even when one side actually controls both houses. No other branch of our government has voluntarily given up it's power like Congress has. A bunch of snivelling cowards collecting their fat pensions and lavish perks...
freakin' Gorsuch wrote that the restrictions on in person churches were bad because a bicycle shop didn't have the same restrictions. What a bad faith argument, pun intended. There aren't hundreds of people congregating in bicycle shops are there?
Maybe in the Spring...
Seriously though, this decision is weird. They didn't really say that 'any' restrictions on church services were unconstitutional. Only these specific restrictions in NYC. Not sure it even accomplished much since Cuomo had already dialed back the restrictions anyway. Another bizarre political news item in a bizarre year...
Don't pay taxes, don't have to follow the rules everyone else does, but yeah, religion is "under attack" in this country, presumably ever since there have been sitcoms on TV with gay characters. Unless SPECIFIC religions were being targeted, what are they arguing about?? If they are Christian, maybe they should pay heed to this verse (I always have to wonder if these people have even read the Bible at all):
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
If God is real, he doesn't need or expect you to be in a big group passing a collection plate. If Jesus is real, he wouldn't want you to kill someone's grandmother to make him feel good. Granted, I'm sure alot of the pushback in New York also came from Orthodox synagogues as well:
I was talking to some folks in a Discord server about the alt right movement and a friend of mine with alt right views, and they seemed to think there was insight in the words. I thought I'd show it here:
"It's one of the interesting things about political beliefs. People are not just motivated by their love of the truth; any belief that makes them feel good is a belief that people will cling to. The whole premise of free speech is that people will choose the best of the free marketplace of ideas, but that's just not how humans work.
My former friend takes active joy in looking down on other people. Every meeting we ever had, he was cracking some joke about the folks he looked down on--it made him happy; it made him laugh; it made him smile. For a lot of disaffected folks on the Internet, certain beliefs make them feel good about themselves.
And there's no better way to make someone feel good about themselves than to tell them that they're inherently superior to vast groups of people.
And yet that's the entire basis for the concept of free, unrestricted speech: the notion that ordinary people are motivated by the search for the truth. And it's false. People aren't innately curious scientists who only want to learn. People do things that make them feel good, and people will gleefully absorb an idea that makes them feel good, even if it's crazy and even if it's toxic. It's why memes and jokes and YouTube videos make up so much of alt right discourse. It's why trolling is such a prized part of the alt right movement, and why white supremacists gravitate towards the movement. It's not about thinking; the alt right is about having fun. It's about laughing at people and feeling superior and being entertained."
It starts out that way, it doesn't stay that way. I still watch videos of people who have comment sections that obviously openly embrace the mindset (hint: they all believe the election was stolen), and I still contend the overall vibe I get from them is that these people believe the country would be better if liberals were exterminated.
freakin' Gorsuch wrote that the restrictions on in person churches were bad because a bicycle shop didn't have the same restrictions. What a bad faith argument, pun intended. There aren't hundreds of people congregating in bicycle shops are there?
Maybe in the Spring...
Seriously though, this decision is weird. They didn't really say that 'any' restrictions on church services were unconstitutional. Only these specific restrictions in NYC. Not sure it even accomplished much since Cuomo had already dialed back the restrictions anyway. Another bizarre political news item in a bizarre year...
I've just been reading the judgment here. I think there are a few points that are important about this:
- the court has taken the line in the past that they should hesitate to overturn the views of officials about the best way to protect health. Roberts supported this view, but the majority over-rode him to the extent of granting injunctive relief against a discriminatory provision that does not currently exist. This does suggest to me the court may well be more activist in other areas in future, ignoring their own precedents where deemed appropriate.
- as has been referred to above, the dissenting minority argued there was no discrimination as secular facilities comparable to houses of worship (like cinemas, theatres, concert venues and sporting arenas) were treated less favorably that religious venues. That Gorsuch's view that religious venues must be treated as favorably as any secular one has prevailed suggests that religions will receive more protection from the courts in future (or at least some religions - the dissenting opinion notes there has not been the same fervor to protect the rights of Muslims).
- SCOTUS is essentially a court concerned with legal principles and does not conduct evidentiary hearings. That's one reason why they have been reluctant in the past to over-ride decisions based on scientific evidence. In this case the opposition briefs included information as to why religious worship was a particularly dangerous activity, but the majority chose to ignore or disbelieve this. That probably says something about the extent to which even judges believe truth is a human construct.
Why did Trump declare twitter a national security threat? Because of his repeatedly endangering US security? No. It's because #diaperdon was trending #1 in the US due to his whiny meltdown and sitting at a tiny table for Thanksgiving
A top Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated. Of ALL the things Trump destroyed or attempted to destroy just because they were Obama Administration accomplishments, nothing has been more destructive than pulling out of the nuclear deal with Iran when they were holding up their end of the bargain. A nuclear Iran had, at least in the near-term, been neutralized. Given these new developments, it will, once again, give the hardliners more ammunition. It's going to be hard for Biden to even bring them back to the table, when Iran now knows that a Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton Administration would just tear up the agreement again.
Knowing that the GOP might be in full power again in 4 years mean that no country can rely on the US for anything. Biden may join the Paris Climate agreement again, but the next president could just pull out again.
Knowing that the GOP might be in full power again in 4 years mean that no country can rely on the US for anything. Biden may join the Paris Climate agreement again, but the next president could just pull out again.
I mean, Biden IS going to rejoin the Paris Climate agreement, likely within the first 48 hours. The Iran scenario took years of painstaking diplomacy, and the betrayal of the agreement is a bell that can't really be unrung.
Knowing that the GOP might be in full power again in 4 years mean that no country can rely on the US for anything. Biden may join the Paris Climate agreement again, but the next president could just pull out again.
I agree, and unfortunately - I think that the rest of the world should operate with the idea that the USA will be in "America First" mode roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the time moving forward. The broken electoral system that allows the GOP to appear to a smaller base by being more and more conservative will have consequences for the whole world.
Knowing that the GOP might be in full power again in 4 years mean that no country can rely on the US for anything. Biden may join the Paris Climate agreement again, but the next president could just pull out again.
I agree, and unfortunately - I think that the rest of the world should operate with the idea that the USA will be in "America First" mode roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the time moving forward. The broken electoral system that allows the GOP to appear to a smaller base by being more and more conservative will have consequences for the whole world.
It's shocking, and sad to think about.
While things will get better under Biden there are too many problems with America.
Major reforms are needed that won't happen. We're going to keep diminishing as a country under permanent minority rule from Republicans who use their systemic built in advantages along with white grievance propaganda culture wars to push corporate socialism and harm American workers.
It really all depends on those runoffs in Georgia. We will barely see any Democratic policies implemented by the federal government if the GOP retains control of the Senate, and it looks doubtful both seats will turn blue.
The GOP will then blame Biden for the gridlock for 2 years, they'll gain seats in Congress in 2022 because that's what normally happens after a party retakes the presidency first term, and they'll spend the next 2 years sabotaging the administration and preventing it from taking action on any major issue. Biden's first term will feature a paralyzed government the entire 4 years for the simple reason that Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans don't want Biden to succeed. They want him to fail, just like they wanted Obama to fail.
I'm worried that all a Biden victory will really accomplish is reducing only the most blatant forms of corruption in our federal government (what with Trump literally hiring his own children to run things and funneling taxpayer money into his hotels) and reducing the number of government employees who are literally criminals (I don't even remember how many Trump officials have pleaded guilty to felonies). The much bigger business of reducing income inequality, implementing campaign finance reform, and even controlling COVID will all get sabotaged.
I'm worried that all a Biden victory will really accomplish is reducing only the most blatant forms of corruption in our federal government (what with Trump literally hiring his own children to run things and funneling taxpayer money into his hotels) and reducing the number of government employees who are literally criminals (I don't even remember how many Trump officials have pleaded guilty to felonies). The much bigger business of reducing income inequality, implementing campaign finance reform, and even controlling COVID will all get sabotaged.
I do think that less people will die in a Biden administration than in a Trump administration. Even with a vaccine potentially right around the corner, Trump has totally abnegated his responsibility to try to stem the tide of COVID19. I truly believe Biden will work is extreme urgency to try to prevent unnecessary death. If for no other reason, this is good enough for me for Biden to be president.
I'm not optimistic for the country moving forward though. The GOP has destroyed my faith in the institutional stability of the systems underpinning our political system. A total and utter repudiation of the GOP in 2020 may have restored that, but we didnt get anything approaching that repudiation.
It's going to be a long winter in 2020, and metaphorically, I think a long winter for the USA.
Just resting in my easy-chair watching the latest fad diet infomercial (on PBS no less!) and decided to a little web-surfing about nutrition. Found this article that basically sums up my thoughts on the issue. Not sure this belongs in the politics section, but the government does publish nutrition guidelines so I'm posting it here. I know nutrition, just like politics & religion, is a heated topic but wanted to see what you all think...
Just resting in my easy-chair watching the latest fad diet infomercial (on PBS no less!) and decided to a little web-surfing about nutrition. Found this article that basically sums up my thoughts on the issue. Not sure this belongs in the politics section, but the government does publish nutrition guidelines so I'm posting it here. I know nutrition, just like politics & religion, is a heated topic but wanted to see what you all think...
I don't know. I'm not really that passionate about nutrition, or knowledgeable for that matter. We've all seen nutritional fads come and go. A long time ago, the most noxious dietary component was fat. Then people starting talking more about the healthy fats. Sugar became the new enemy. Now people are talking about the pros and cons of vegetarianism, veganism, carnivore diet, paleo diet, etc. I don't really have an opinion on this issue. What I can say is that factory farming, feedlots, and industrial fishing seem to do more harm than good. I'm not against eating animals per se, I think the problem has more to do with reckless industrialization.
Comments
Unfortunately - ACB has repeatedly made statements that she doesnt view stare decisis as being as important as other judges. Stare decisis is the idea that you leave established precedent in place, regardless of how you feel about it.
It seems she subscribes to the idea that bad precedent (in her view) can and should be overturned when necessary. We can also glean from her past that she isnt sympathetic to either the ACA or RvW. It's not hard for one to come to the conclusion that she probably views those as bad precedent, and would be less reticent to overturn them than other justices.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/25/democrats-campaigns-lost-house-seats-dccc-439676
The lack of in-person canvassing due to COVID seems especially crushing. When you're not going door-to-door because you don't want to spread the virus, you're missing out on data you could use to better win elections. I'm guessing the GOP didn't have as many concerns about door-to-door legwork, and that would have given them an advantage in targeting.
It's worth pointing out that Biden won pretty handily without an real in-person events to draw enthusiasm whatsoever (aside from a couple drive-in events with Obama late in the game). Trump was holding rallies on daily basis. God only knows how many lives Biden saved by taking his approach and Trump cost with his. It's really impossible to measure, but we can be assured it more than one going each way. Which frankly tells you all you need to know about who SHOULD be President between the two of them.
Ironically, I would claim that Trump effectively rallied for both of them. His unhinged rants during those events mobilized both his base and his opponents.
That's why while so many voted for Biden for but didn't vote for down ballot Democrats, many of which were nigh indistinguishable from corporate Republicans anyway.
Some downballot democrats were progressive, and not all of them did as well as Biden. I'm sure plenty of people voting for Biden were voting against Trump, but we need to understand that this wasnt some progressive wave that washed Trump away. It was everyone but the hard right. The scary part is that so few conservative moderates remain.
Unlike some states, Minnesota isn't gerrymandered to death (the Districts approach something like actual reasonable shapes on a map). The rural areas are really rural, and the urban areas likewise in their direction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-religion-new-york.html
The argument is that the law was unequal because *some* secular places were subject to lower restrictions than churches, despite the fact that other secular places were shut down *entirely* when churches were not.
The law was tweaked based on the way each venue contributed to COVID risks, and church services are higher risk environments than most. Having a whole crowd of people singing at the same time in an enclosed space and mingling closely before and after for over an hour is going to spread an airborne virus a lot fast than people quietly slipping in and out of, yes, a liquor store in a slow trickle over the course of a day. But saying "churches are being treated harsher than liquor stores" is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they simply don't pose equal risks for spreading COVID--and I say this as a person who frequently discourages people in my life from drinking alcohol.
"It's one of the interesting things about political beliefs. People are not just motivated by their love of the truth; any belief that makes them feel good is a belief that people will cling to. The whole premise of free speech is that people will choose the best of the free marketplace of ideas, but that's just not how humans work.
My former friend takes active joy in looking down on other people. Every meeting we ever had, he was cracking some joke about the folks he looked down on--it made him happy; it made him laugh; it made him smile. For a lot of disaffected folks on the Internet, certain beliefs make them feel good about themselves.
And there's no better way to make someone feel good about themselves than to tell them that they're inherently superior to vast groups of people.
And yet that's the entire basis for the concept of free, unrestricted speech: the notion that ordinary people are motivated by the search for the truth. And it's false. People aren't innately curious scientists who only want to learn. People do things that make them feel good, and people will gleefully absorb an idea that makes them feel good, even if it's crazy and even if it's toxic.
It's why memes and jokes and YouTube videos make up so much of alt right discourse. It's why trolling is such a prized part of the alt right movement, and why white supremacists gravitate towards the movement. It's not about thinking; the alt right is about having fun. It's about laughing at people and feeling superior and being entertained."
Find a way around it. This idea that the SCOTUS is the 'supreme' power in this country is ludicrous. Annoy the living shit out of them by changing something in the law/decree that appeases their argument without outright capitulating and force them have to rule again. Multiple times if need be. Waste their fucking time on penny-ante bullshit. Nobody ever really takes them on. It's high time the Supreme Court was taken off their high-horse anyway. Equal branches my ass...
https://classroom.synonym.com/congress-check-supreme-courts-powers-13586.html
Maybe in the Spring...
Seriously though, this decision is weird. They didn't really say that 'any' restrictions on church services were unconstitutional. Only these specific restrictions in NYC. Not sure it even accomplished much since Cuomo had already dialed back the restrictions anyway. Another bizarre political news item in a bizarre year...
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
If God is real, he doesn't need or expect you to be in a big group passing a collection plate. If Jesus is real, he wouldn't want you to kill someone's grandmother to make him feel good. Granted, I'm sure alot of the pushback in New York also came from Orthodox synagogues as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/nyregion/williamsburg-jewish-wedding-coronavirus-covid-masks.html
It starts out that way, it doesn't stay that way. I still watch videos of people who have comment sections that obviously openly embrace the mindset (hint: they all believe the election was stolen), and I still contend the overall vibe I get from them is that these people believe the country would be better if liberals were exterminated.
I've just been reading the judgment here. I think there are a few points that are important about this:
- the court has taken the line in the past that they should hesitate to overturn the views of officials about the best way to protect health. Roberts supported this view, but the majority over-rode him to the extent of granting injunctive relief against a discriminatory provision that does not currently exist. This does suggest to me the court may well be more activist in other areas in future, ignoring their own precedents where deemed appropriate.
- as has been referred to above, the dissenting minority argued there was no discrimination as secular facilities comparable to houses of worship (like cinemas, theatres, concert venues and sporting arenas) were treated less favorably that religious venues. That Gorsuch's view that religious venues must be treated as favorably as any secular one has prevailed suggests that religions will receive more protection from the courts in future (or at least some religions - the dissenting opinion notes there has not been the same fervor to protect the rights of Muslims).
- SCOTUS is essentially a court concerned with legal principles and does not conduct evidentiary hearings. That's one reason why they have been reluctant in the past to over-ride decisions based on scientific evidence. In this case the opposition briefs included information as to why religious worship was a particularly dangerous activity, but the majority chose to ignore or disbelieve this. That probably says something about the extent to which even judges believe truth is a human construct.
Well technically, by losing due to incompetence, he IS responsible for the stock market going up...
It's true because Trump has repeatedly and carelessly revealed national security secrets on Twitter.
Over Twitter Donald Trump shared a photograph of an intelligence briefing that exposed US military secrets to the world.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-may-have-revealed-us-military-secrets-taunting-iran-2019-8
Trump also revealed the location and identities of US Navy Seals in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/27/trump-iraq-location-tweet-troops-visit-revealed
Why did Trump declare twitter a national security threat? Because of his repeatedly endangering US security? No. It's because #diaperdon was trending #1 in the US due to his whiny meltdown and sitting at a tiny table for Thanksgiving
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-twitter-diaperdon-election-press-conference-b1762682.html
Also he attacked a reporter "don't you know who I am, I am the president you don't talk to the president like that ever!"
Reminds me of "Any man who says I am the king is no king" from Game of Thrones.
I mean, Biden IS going to rejoin the Paris Climate agreement, likely within the first 48 hours. The Iran scenario took years of painstaking diplomacy, and the betrayal of the agreement is a bell that can't really be unrung.
I agree, and unfortunately - I think that the rest of the world should operate with the idea that the USA will be in "America First" mode roughly 1/2 to 1/3rd of the time moving forward. The broken electoral system that allows the GOP to appear to a smaller base by being more and more conservative will have consequences for the whole world.
It's shocking, and sad to think about.
While things will get better under Biden there are too many problems with America.
Major reforms are needed that won't happen. We're going to keep diminishing as a country under permanent minority rule from Republicans who use their systemic built in advantages along with white grievance propaganda culture wars to push corporate socialism and harm American workers.
The GOP will then blame Biden for the gridlock for 2 years, they'll gain seats in Congress in 2022 because that's what normally happens after a party retakes the presidency first term, and they'll spend the next 2 years sabotaging the administration and preventing it from taking action on any major issue. Biden's first term will feature a paralyzed government the entire 4 years for the simple reason that Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans don't want Biden to succeed. They want him to fail, just like they wanted Obama to fail.
I'm worried that all a Biden victory will really accomplish is reducing only the most blatant forms of corruption in our federal government (what with Trump literally hiring his own children to run things and funneling taxpayer money into his hotels) and reducing the number of government employees who are literally criminals (I don't even remember how many Trump officials have pleaded guilty to felonies). The much bigger business of reducing income inequality, implementing campaign finance reform, and even controlling COVID will all get sabotaged.
I do think that less people will die in a Biden administration than in a Trump administration. Even with a vaccine potentially right around the corner, Trump has totally abnegated his responsibility to try to stem the tide of COVID19. I truly believe Biden will work is extreme urgency to try to prevent unnecessary death. If for no other reason, this is good enough for me for Biden to be president.
I'm not optimistic for the country moving forward though. The GOP has destroyed my faith in the institutional stability of the systems underpinning our political system. A total and utter repudiation of the GOP in 2020 may have restored that, but we didnt get anything approaching that repudiation.
It's going to be a long winter in 2020, and metaphorically, I think a long winter for the USA.
https://meaningness.com/nutrition
I don't know. I'm not really that passionate about nutrition, or knowledgeable for that matter. We've all seen nutritional fads come and go. A long time ago, the most noxious dietary component was fat. Then people starting talking more about the healthy fats. Sugar became the new enemy. Now people are talking about the pros and cons of vegetarianism, veganism, carnivore diet, paleo diet, etc. I don't really have an opinion on this issue. What I can say is that factory farming, feedlots, and industrial fishing seem to do more harm than good. I'm not against eating animals per se, I think the problem has more to do with reckless industrialization.