I totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.
Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?
republicans don’t base their opinions on reality, and Dems do
To be fair, a lot of liberals inflate reality too. Usually it’s to overcompensate for “history”, less than today’s reality. It can be a bit much.
And I wouldn’t say Republicans have opinions so much as they follow cult leaders. An opinion is usually something based on things you know rather than what you’ve been tricked into saying.
We care more about engaging with content that spikes our brain chemicals than we care about facts and reality. So many people have been duped to believe and promote things that are verifiably false for the benefit of corporate interests and the fragile ego of you-know-who.
This article is genuinely terrifying. It confirms that half of Americans believe statements that have been proven to be lies. That’s a lot of people being hoodwinked. That’s a lot of people convinced they should cast a vote to hurt themselves for the benefit of one person who has never done a thing to help them. It honestly breaks my heart.
I guess I’ve been living under a rock because I’ve never heard this story. So, as a curious person, I would have expected someone writing an article about the story would at least take a few sentences to explain WTF beaglegate is about.
I searched on my own and found the story to be mixed truth.
It is a fact that, in two different NIAID congressionally funded studies, beagle puppies were tested on and euthanized.
It’s not clear if Fauci specifically knew of or approved of these studies while he was head of the NIAID. Though all tests were done according to existing procedures and regulations. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of what the tests were or how the dogs were treated for political theater.
There is literally no good argument for writing a law banning this. It’s indefensible. I challenge one person to try.
I’ve been in favor of RCV for a decade+ and believe our country would change practically overnight by adopting it; however, there are legitimate reasons it hasn’t been adopted. As stated and linked in the article,
Brown and other critics of ranked choice voting contend the system is confusing, and he said there are numerous instances in which voters didn’t end up ranking their choices.
Ballot exhaustion occurs when a ballot is no longer countable in a tally as all of the candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest. This can occur as part of ranked-choice voting when a voter has ranked only candidates that have been eliminated even though other candidates remain in the contest, as voters are not required to rank all candidates in an election. In cases where a voter has ranked only candidates that did not make it to the final round of counting, the voter’s ballot is said to have been exhausted. An exhausted ballot is sometimes referred to as an inactive ballot.
Whether this qualifies as “literally no good argument” I think is dependent on the number ballots where this was an issue. You could make an argument that people aren’t educated about the system or the system isn’t adaptable for all voters. Whether those are “good arguments” is perhaps subjective.
My question to them was: How does “dehumanizing” work to begin with? If we’re wired to be social empathetic creatures, what is so powerful about these statements to unwire us?
The entire story is missing right between these two paragraphs.
Why are dehumanization and violence so closely connected? As social creatures, we’re wired to empathize with our fellow human beings, and we get uncomfortable when we see someone suffering.
Once someone is dehumanized, we usually deny them the consideration, compassion and empathy that we typically give other people. It can relax our instinctive aversion to aggression and violence.
I agree with you. I recognize my choice of words didn’t hit the nail on the head and I failed to take the time to find the right word(s).
Whatever the word is for people who are easily brainwashed and find comfort in their echo chamber despite being informed of the facts by historically reputable organizations - those people.
Because despite liberals also living in their own echo chambers, most of them can still observe reality and accept that Biden also has his shortcomings. They can also look at what’s going on with Hunter and agree with the reasonable Republicans and say whatever wrongs he did, he should be held accountable. They can judge him for what he’s doing / not doing in Gaza and protest him (as they should). If Joe Biden did one percent of what Trump has done in his life, Democrats would turn on him, not defend him. I’m still not forgiving him for the 1994 crime bill and don’t think he should ever have been elected president. I was excited to discover a progressive voice in TYT in the mid 2010s but I’ve kept a level head and realized they were turning into extremists.
Brainwashing, propaganda, advertising; I don’t understand how they work. I worked as an art director in advertising and I had to quit because of all the manipulation. They all treat people like rats hanging a big chunk of stinky cheese in front of them.
I’m a pretty dumb person but I vividly recall, as an eight year old in catechism class, thinking all religions claim to be the “true” religion and realizing that there was no such thing as god and it was ll bullshit. How was I, as an eight year old, able to break free from the cult while most grown adults fail to see through it all? That’s the part I don’t get and I wrongly chose “dummy” to describe these people.
I’m a registered Democrat. I would not support him dropping out of the election even if he’s in jail.
There is no established rule that says you can not run for president as a convicted felon.
What I am in favor of is people not being fucking idiots and voting for a convicted felon to be president. Just as the same as I’m in favor of people not voting for a literal farm animal to be president - it’s just moronic. I’m also no in favor of people voting for anyone who’s failed to present themselves as a public figure who gives a flying fuck about the American People or the United States Constitution or someone who may be a rapist or may be a bigot or may not be able to speak or read comprehensively. Why the fuck are we stuck with this guy as an option? Out of 330 million people, this is the best we can do?
Edit: I mean, how is it that so many people are dummies?
people are fairly split on the Trump case overall with 47% saying the charges against Trump were politically motivated
It’s been reported that only 10% of felons are given jail time for similar convictions. You have to wonder if such remarks after his conviction, indicating he’s learned absolutely nothing, may lead a judge towards the harsher punishment.
Also, let’s take a moment to applaud Alvin L. Bragg.
Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, risked his reputation by indicting Mr. Trump in a case that some prominent Democrats said wasn’t strong enough to have brought against a former president. Instead, Mr. Bragg cemented his place in history as the first prosecutor to convict a former president.
The wealth gap is certainly an issue. Typically, Americans are more prosperous under Democratic presidents and while that may be true on paper in select areas, it’s apparent that most people are still hurting. On paper, Biden has been a remarkable president and has saved Americans billions if not trillions. Saving money is different than putting money in their pockets though. To say, yeah - but it could have been so much worse, means nothing to most people.
A study by the liberal Institute of Taxation and Public Policy predicts Mr. Biden’s plan would increase by more than $100,000 a year what someone in the top 1% of earners pays Uncle Sam. President Obama in 2013 raised taxes on that same group by $83,000. President Trump in 2017 cut their taxes by about $50,000 a year.
The top 1% of Americans earn about 20% of all income in the U.S., but they pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes. The Biden plan will put even more of the tax burden on the wealthy. “It’s time for corporate America and the wealthiest 1% of Americans to just begin to pay their fair share,” he said Wednesday in his speech to Congress.
And wages are up compared to inflation for the past year. But eventhough inflation is still at a comfortable-ish sub 4%, the future looks questionable. www.statista.com/…/wage-growth-vs-inflation-us/
But to the greater point, when people are struggling to put food on the table and upgrade appliances or save for the future, they’re going to get stressed. They’re going to become afraid and they’re going to search for answers - even if those answers are wrong, it’s what they want to hear. Keeping this wage gap wide, keeping the middle class down, gives politicians power.
That certainly seems reasonable and maybe you’re right.
For similar reasons, people are (rightfully) protesting Biden due to his policies with Gaza. I know that in the presidential primary in my (super blue/Democrat) county last month, 10% of the votes cast by Democrats (16,216) were write-ins and 90% of those (14,625) were for non-people (“uncommitted”, etc). As it turns out, practically the same number of people cast protest votes as votes for Trump (14,740). Biden still got 144,000 votes so losing 14,000 to Trump isn’t so much of a concern. My greater concern is about how easily people are being manipulated - across the board, across the world - and how people are losing sight on the possible crumbling of the country they live in. Not to mention only 20% of my county even bothered to vote.
Totally unrelated… actually, maybe not totally, this conversation has me going back and checking on some voting records. The 2020 election was the highest voter turnout in Philadelphia for 25 years. It was also the highest turnout in the United States for a century. So when Trumpers claim ‘the election was rigged because Trump got more votes than any other president. How is it possible for Biden to get more votes than him?’, they’re ignoring the verifiable facts that the election had a record high turn out. It’s been all downhill since they’ve been denying these election results.
Hopefully I’m just overwhelmed with the news cycle but it seems like people really don’t care much about intellectualism. This country has been on an anti-intellectualism path for a decade or more. If people don’t care to know stuff, how can we progress?
This group has been told over and over that what they believe is factually untrue. You can point at the sky and explain it’s blue and offer the scientific explanation for it being blue yet they will claim that it’s red with no evidence at all (just that the pillow guy says so). This used to be a fringe group and I totally get that a small segment of the population has particular perspectives but the fact that it’s becoming common place is just mind bending. I don’t understand how people can be shown facts and continue to lie to themselves. How hurt can you be? How prevalent is mental instability? What could we possibly do to make people feel better and give a crap about themselves and their communities?
That means not just voting but talking with people around you, volunteering and donating
Honestly, I give up. If you’ve already decided you’re voting for Trump, you do not exist in the same reality as me. There is absolutely zero redeeming quality about the person or his politics. He literally does not care about the United States, the Constitution, or the people voting for him. A vote for Trump isn’t a vote for president, it’s a vote for a cult leader. I’m not equipped to fix what’s broken in your head.