Felagund
3mo ago
I think if anyone brings it up, it would have to be Vance, citing specifics. If Trump brings it up, no one takes him seriously.
Felagund
3mo ago
I'm not sure if it's sufficiently substantive. Do issues like this motivate people at the national level?
Felagund
3mo ago
I wonder what attacks on their campaign are most likely to stick. There is no record for the future, just vibes. Maybe the best attack on that is that she caves to pressure, especially from leftists? This sort of attack seems better to match the amount of agency she is projecting herself as having, and allows you to show why that's bad.
Debates soon would be good. Once they start actually taking positions, then you have positions to attack.
Felagund
3mo ago
He personally wanted to debate, and it gave more time for any bad impressions to wear off (which, in fact, did not happen, until he was forced out).
Actually, do people still think of Biden as too old now (on a gut level)? Has that lessened since people stopped caring about it?
Felagund
3mo ago
Her prosecutorial record is astonishingly weak and it blows my mind that the Trump campaign hasn't started running huge numbers of ads showing what she did and said during that time. She was just beyond ghoulish in her decisions and I think that the sheen on her image will evaporate once that stuff gets more widely known - at the very least enthusiasm on the left will take a nosedive when they realise they're voting for the cop who wanted to keep innocent black men in jail for prison labour.
Law and order appeals to the median voter, I think. Not sure that would help.
Felagund
3mo ago
And the optics are decided on by the media, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Game, set, and match.
And social media, which is more of a mixed bag.
Felagund
3mo ago
It looks like it's 13000 per year for non-Mormons. That's not bad, though there exist other options for similar prices.
Felagund
3mo ago
as quite willing to compromise on values for tuition money,
Do they? I would have thought they were heavily subsidized.
Felagund
3mo ago
But that we have wildly differing rationalizations about why.
What is your rationalization? I'm curious.
Felagund
3mo ago
Uhh… are you asserting that there are multiple identities within you (read "you" expansively here) capable of doing things like "identifying"?
Felagund
3mo ago
What are the main losses that you'd point to? The Supreme court, sure. Elon buying twitter. What else?
Trump's brought it up several times. But no one believes him. You're right that this could probably be pressed in a more serious manner, but merely having Trump repeat it does not work.
See also Montana's failed referendum to protect those children.
Felagund
3mo ago
I think it probably would have helped, actually. It's the moderate position. I assume you win more undecided independents by being pro-Israel than you lose far-left by being pro-Palestine.
And Shapiro's the governor in what's currently the most important state.
Felagund
3mo ago
I just realized he decided to leave the site after posting the top post of all time.
Felagund
3mo ago
It describes this as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the senate. What does that imply, exactly? I assume the house would still be needed.
Felagund
3mo ago
No, the premise of republicanism is restrain power to make insufficiently popular tyranny hard to enact.
Felagund
3mo ago
That's a misconception! See The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury, by Michal Stokes Paulsen.
Marbury merely implied that justices could interpret whether statutes were constitutionally legitimate in the cases before them. This is obviously correct—they swear an oath to it, and the Constitution is law, supremacy clause, etc. That does not say that it binds the Executive or something in all other similar cases, they are bound by their own, independent, oath to support the Constitution, which implies that they themselves are also to interpret the constitution within their own sphere.
Subsequently, the Court has asserted Judicial supremacy, but that's not what Marbury said.
Felagund
3mo ago
Sounds like you're strung up on is/ought.
I don't see how I'm doing anything of the sort. Could you elaborate?
The Supreme Court is an inherently political institution
Yes and no. Yes, people's political views influence their legal opinions, and vice versa. Yes, the political process is how people get onto the court. But the court does not make decisions just based off whatever is politically expedient. Its members often consider themselves to be trying to perform a conscientiously non-political task, which influences how they decide things.
therefore
You provide no explanation.
it is good to ensure that we cycle through members of our highest tiers of government on a regular basis to prevent too much power creep.
I don't see why this would result in that, in the abstract. That isn't at all obvious to me. It's not like presidents decide to prevent their own power creep, and they're gone in at most eight years.
In the concrete case, Justice Thomas is the most limited view of what the judiciary can do, wanting to reduce its power, so removing him from the court first is not conducive to preventing power creep.
If I read you rightly, you're still distinguishing between your body and you. I don't understand the lines of that. Why is language your body's (contra an earlier comment), but vision (if I understand your GPU comment) part of you? Though maybe the end of the comment divides less.
I also don't understand why draw the line in your identity at all. Why not have it all be you?
Finally, why do you not consider yourself human?
More options
Context Copy link