This election cycle — when researchers have found Black voters are being heavily targeted by political disinformation — it is crucial to not turn “communities against one another,” Johnson said.
The only way republicans can win is by turning communities against one another. Finding wedge issues to turn groups of Americans against each other is the main tool in their tool box.
What do you want from Republicans - a party that hasn’t stopped trying to eat each others’ faces throughout the past 3+ years? You want a platform? Ideas?
Oh wait…that’s Project 2025 and they would rather we steer clear of discussing that.
any other election - when the party base suggests treason (proj 2025) - you’d think that would be the end. Why isn’t this every response to any undecided voter?
That’s the deal with all the nonsensical lying Trump does.
You take a focus group, find out what upsets everyone most but also seems plausible or conforms to some bias. What ever that is you feed into the disinformation machine then Trump seeks it out and latches on to it.
This was in contrast to Trump’s meeting earlier in the day with House Republicans on Capitol Hill. Attendees at that meeting told CNBC that the former president was animated and engaged and that Trump received several rounds of applause in separate meetings Thursday with both House and Senate Republicans.
It’s like North Korea in the GOP. If you aren’t clapping maniacally and openly sobbing in His Presence you will be primaried.
“Taking away the mayor’s law license is meant to discourage lawyers from representing clients like President Donald Trump or anyone else who is willing to take on the prevailing political establishment,” he added.
The majority of attorneys that have represented Trump in his civil and criminal trials have not been disbarred; only the ones that are committing crimes have been. The biggest discouragement to lawyers had been Trump’s unwillingness to pay the legal bills he owes, coupled with Trump’s unwillingness to follow legal counsel.
“We think this particular minion has reached the end of his usefulness, so here’s one satisfying but ultimately very small victory to distract you from the gutting of anti-bribery laws, industry regulations, protections for unhoused people against arbitrary arrests, etc.”
Or we could just readdress healthcare since in 2008 we got a more conservative version of the Republican’s plan and then promptly forgot about ever improving it
We need actual progressives to get shit done, Biden and other “moderates” just won’t even try, and want us to be happy for crumbs.
I am not an American so there’s parts of this I don’t get. My national health agency negotiates prices for all drugs, thousands of them so this reads weird to ke.
Article says even these measures are uncertain to become law, does that mean it would be even less likely if something more ambitious was planned?
Medicare negotiating prices is a fairly new thing for the US and something that could ultimately be killed by the supreme court (it shouldn’t be, but we have a majority of extremists on the court).
Why it’s uncertain to become law is because our right wing party (republicans) have historically been completely opposed to any social program. Our “left” party is also fairly centrist and arguably even right leaning in parts so it’s uncertain that even with a majority of them in power that improvements would pass.
The problem we have is the filibuster in the senate. It allows any senator to kill a bill. To overturn it takes 60 votes (out of 100) and the senate is currently split 50/50.
The meager changes we got under obamacare literally happened because a republican senator died which opened the gate to ram through a few pieces of legislation which would otherwise not pass. Obamacare was overall an OK bill with some good stuff in it, but it really just re-enforced the current crazy capitalist market system. That was all the right leaning democrats would stomach. There was talk about an option for using government healthcare but that was quashed.
I know all political systems have their problems and limitations, gotta say that sucks especially the part about one man blocking new laws and also having extremists running a court? That’s literally the opposite of what a court should be in my opinion.
I guess that would make it really hard for anyone, even a president, to put meaningful changes in place.
Over here we have a competent leader totally bogged down and derailed by their party extremists. He could be good, but the system itself means he’s really not. Sounds like America has a version of that too.
I guess that would make it really hard for anyone, even a president, to put meaningful changes in place.
Yup. We can pass legislation that says “hey SC, you are wrong about the interpretation of this legislation so do it right”. However, they’ve invented this “major questions doctrine” principle that basically lets them strike down “big” things that they don’t like.
The only solution to that problem is either justices dying or legislation being passed to raise the cap on justices and the president packing the court. Which runs right into the filibuster problem.
At the beginning of biden’s term democrats nearly nuked the filibuster. However, 2 centrist democrats squashed that.
Democrats only had a Senate supermajority for 72 days.
Furthermore, a supermajority of exactly 60 votes only allows Democrats to pass something that 100% of them support. And Lieberman did not support anything more far reaching than the ACA, such as a public option.
What’s your narrative? Democrats had control of both the Senate and the house with a Democrat president for years and somehow it’s still Republicans fault they did basically fuck all with it?
And if that’s not sufficient evidence to believe either our Democracy is completely broken or Democrats are corrupt or incompetent then you must be someone who’s continuing to benefit from all of this while quality of life deteriorates for the rest of us.
I’m really sick of this lecture as if I don’t understand that. I’m a human being who lives in reality I’m very familiar with not getting everything I want. I don’t buy a car for $20,000 and then complain it doesn’t have the quality of a $300,000 car. I will complain when the $20,000 car doesn’t deliver what I expect for a $20,000 car. This is no different. Democrats held a majority in congress for four years. What they delivered with that kind of opportunity was inexcusably insufficient.
The system can’t be changed in the near future. And it was deliberately designed to interfere with progress.
I’m sure you can imagine a better system, but we don’t live in your imagination. So I don’t defend the system, I defend Democrats who do the best they can in spite of the system.
Lol. Oh, there it is “I’m not defending the system I’m just defending the people who have played a huge part in shaping that system.”
So I’ll go back what I was saying earlier. You’re defending Democrats because you’ve benefited from their ineptitude while quality of life deteriorates for the rest of us.
Yes, I benefitted from the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, and the ACA. And you’re right, fuck the trust fund babies who had to pay higher taxes to support those programs.
You didn’t benefit from them, so you must be among the lucky few who prospered under Trump. It all makes sense now.
If you’re only celebrating things that benefit other people the rest of your life must be pretty sweet. Unless you’re trying to tell me you’re suffering and in spite of that you don’t care you’re not seeing anything directly benefit you.
But life isn’t necessarily “sweet” for people who have to take care of others. Plenty of people are struggling yet have to take care of their children and their parents. All of the legislation in that list helps to ease their burden.
But life isn’t necessarily “sweet” for people who have to take care of others. Plenty of people are struggling yet have to take care of their children and their parents. All of the legislation in that list helps to ease their burden.
So your life sucks then? You seem to be having a difficult time explaining why you’re grateful to Democrats for what they’ve done without accidentally admitting it’s because you’re not suffering.
I never said I was personally suffering. But my loved ones are struggling in retirement and I’m deeply grateful for what Democrats have done for them.
You seem to think all that matters in life is whether you are personally suffering. You truly think like a Republican, every “I got mine Jack” accusation is a confession.
The ACA provides a benefit to a family of four with an income under $120K or a single person with an income under $58K.
If you don’t qualify, then congratulations your income is above the US median. You got yours, Jack. And Democrats will focus their attention on those who are less fortunate.
When talking about things that cost money, it’s always either/or. If you spend $X someone in the top 50%, you have $X less to spend on those in the bottom 50%. And personally I prefer that Democrats generally prioritize spending for the bottom 50%.
Democrats also support things that help everyone and don’t cost the government anything. For example, the ACA banned insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, banned them from raising premiums on sick people, banned them from dropping people in the middle of treatment. Those were all major problems before the ACA, and the ACA helped everyone by fixing them.
If you always prioritize the less fortunate and ignore any issue affecting anybody who is anywhere above less fortunate it means more people will slip into being less fortunate. If you want the less fortunate to be able to get out of their situation and stay there then you need to also prioritize making sure there’s a viable path to success. That path to success is being eroded and neither Republicans nor Democrats are addressing it. What do you think that leads to?
By definition, half of Americans will always be below median. Even if you could make everyone in the US into a success story, half would be below median.
So the point is not make everyone above median, that’s impossible. The point is to use the median to determine who needs help the most. And someone who is below median right now needs more help than someone who is not right now, even if they might be in the future.
Because it includes investments and so it is a better indicator of need than wage.
There are plenty of people who have small wages/salary, or even zero wages/salary, and instead rely on investment income.
For example, most landlords. Or retired people. Or the idle wealthy, like the various unemployed children of billionaires. Jeff Bezos has a salary of roughly $80K at Amazon. But he is way better off than someone with a salary of $90K.
If you look at wages instead of overall income, you might think some of those folks are struggling when they absolutely aren’t.
Some of those people are definitely below median, like many retirees struggling to live off their life savings.
But in general, a rising GDP does not target people below median income. That’s exactly why Democrats prefer additional spending that is specifically targeted towards those people.
Yes, increasing median income amounts to increasing GDP.
And increasing median income is preferable to increasing median wages, because it also helps people who are struggling to survive off their life savings.
Everyone wants higher income, but an elderly retiree no longer cares about higher wages.
And increasing median income is preferable to increasing median wages, because it also helps people who are struggling to survive off their life savings.
Lol. No. Our GDP has been increasing steadily for decades and quality of life has deteriorated for most Americans while billionaires are absorbing most of that growth.
Turns out you’re the one advocating for the rich and boomers while fucking everybody else in the process.
The fact that you’re against this tells me you wouldn’t qualify, and that you want to take money intended for those less fortunate than you.
Buddy, you just flew over the point that the GDP has been increasing for decades and the quality of life for Americans has gone down. Clearly this challenges your view that:
And increasing median income is preferable to increasing median wages, because it also helps people who are struggling to survive off their life savings.
Because there’s over 50 years of evidence showing that’s not how it plays out.
Standard of living has generally improved over the past few decades. The percentage of people in poverty is decreasing over time. The percentage of families that are food-insecure is also decreasing. These changes have gone hand-in-hand with increased spending per capita on social programs targeted towards the disadvantaged.
Democrats had a majority in the Senate and the house for four years. If you’re acknowledging that establishment Democrats are corrupt pieces of shit then I agree with you but it seems like you’re trying to avoid acknowledging that fact.
Sometimes they get elected, but the system is so filled with corruption that it seems those progressive values are quickly abandoned. Justice Dems are, sadly, often good examples of this.
We have to end the legalized bribery and get money out of politics before any true progressive agenda can be implemented.
“Actual progressives” can’t get shit done because they can’t get elected.
But then the people who won’t vote for progressives browbeat progressives into voting for their pro-corporate trash candidates. Or scream and cry when their pro-corporate trash candidate loses in the general.
This article is short on details but what I really want to know is WHERE is that data coming from and how the fuck does United have access to it?! Also, a follow-up question would be how does one ensure they don’t get access to that data? Is that even possible anymore?
I think they can retain customers’ past flight records and maybe list of media played in flights. That said it’s almost guaranteed some ad marketing corpo is behind, and EULA is always vague enough to allow sharing external party…
My hope is that there wouldn’t be anything more personal about it than age, sex, and location… But I am sure there’s a lot more that even an airline (businesses that tend to be decades behind in systems they run) can get
They collect the usual stuff you use for travel like name, address, payment details, biometrics, I.D etc and also
Information collected in your use of our mobile application(s) includes, but is not limited to:
With your consent, your pinpointed physical location information from technologies like GPS, Wi-Fi, or cell tower proximity (geo-location tracking)
With your consent, while at or near certain airports in the U.S., your pinpointed physical location will be tracked continuously to provide you location-based offers, services and other information. For more information, see the Location Services FAQ located on the side menu of the United App;
Your domain name;
Device ID or alternative ID where required by the platform provider;
Electronic data concerning operating systems and computing devices/browser, including types;
Features you use and links you click;
Amount of time spent in the application;
Installs and uninstalls;
Transaction details and history.
We may combine this information with information that we already have collected about you.
We collect information about you from third parties. If you make a reservation through a travel agent, we will obtain your travel information from that agent. We may also obtain information about you from our marketing partners, advertisers and other third parties.
We primarily use your information, including personal information, to provide our services to you and to fulfill your requests. In certain circumstances, such as for advertising purposes, we combine your information with other information that we have about you, that is publicly available and/or that we have obtained from third parties (either individually or in the aggregate)
We also use your information for the following purposes:
For marketing and advertising. United uses your information, consistent with applicable law, individually, in the aggregate, and/or combined with demographic information that we maintain or collect from third parties, for marketing and advertising purposes (via email, direct mail, telephone, web or other electronic advertising) and to send you news and newsletters. Specifically, information that we collect about you may be used to send you email, direct mail, or telephone communications about offers from United, its partners or other third parties, that might be of interest to you (please see the section on Disclosing your information below and the section on Changing your marketing preferences below). We also use your information to determine appropriate advertising channels and venues and to place ads on such channels and venues, including placing advertising on social networking sites.
I’m sure the money they make from this will subsidies flight costs that will be passed on to the end user for cheaper flight!
Idaho is a great example of passing so many stupid ass laws that forced medical experts to leave. The pandemic pushed a lot of doctors and nurses out, and the whole abortion thing even more.
Now, they’re spending a lot on helicopters to take critical patients out of state.
What infuriates me about that article is that the Idaho AG is literally arguing that patients being airlifted to other states for emergency treatment simply didn’t happen.
I’d love for the US AG to be able to call a handful of witnesses saying that they were airlifted for an emergency abortion and ask the Idaho AG. Are you saying my situation just never happened? Am I just a statistic to you? Or are you just pretending that I don’t exist because it doesn’t fit your narrative?
I know it won’t happen because that’s not how the SC works. But I’d still love to see it.
Rural communities across the entire country are struggling to hire doctors. It turns out that smart young people just don’t want to work in Jesusland for some strange reason.
As someone who actually does have chronic diarrhea and shat their pants just today (yay autoimmune diseases), I agree. “I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy” can get fucked, I absolutely do wish this shit (🥁) on them.
A simplified summary: The donor is accused of fraud and of using the proceeds of a scam (stolen money) to make a $100,000 donation Giuliani’s legal defense funds. The lawsuit is trying to claw back that donation to help pay restitution to the victims of the donors alleged scam.
Yo dawg, we heard you like crimes so we did some crimes to help with the defense fund for your crimes. Turns out that’s also a crime and now we need our crime money back from your crime defense fund.
I mean this seems appropriate. One of the two should have just stepped back from the case (Wade) when they got involved personally.
However, Fani’s decision making throughout has been simply indefensible. This trial is the ONLY trial going on where Trump can’t go to the Supreme Court to get the decision changed. Fani putting this whole thing up for grabs for the sake of a personal relationhship, her decision to go with Wade as council for this case, not just front running this and removing Wade. It all is just so disappointing considering this should have been a slam dunk. Instead she gave media all the ammunition they’ll need to call the ruling ‘corrupt’ and ‘fake’. I mean we have the god damned tapes. She could have just ran this by the book and it would have been a slam dunk. Maybe she could have gone on some dates with the attorney on the cop city trial instead and gotten thrown off that instead.
Its not clear to me how this will impact the overall case moving forward, but its done damage, that’s for certain. Can’t feign ignorance around how important perception is on things like this.
Yep this was the correct call by the judge. It should have been blindingly obvious that this would be the result of them starting their relationship. Yet they went ahead with it anyway and put the whole case at risk. Completely insane decision making on display here.
Plus had they disqualified the case, it would have removed it from her ENTIRE office to be able to take it over and continue. Had she just stepped back, one of her deputies could have taken it over and run with it. This was a risky move, and due to it being the only one Trump can’t quash federally, really scary to have dug her heels in like she did. She’s lucky it didn’t go another way.
cnbc.com
Top