I’m torn. If our country ever goes back to normal, I’d love to be able to show my grandkids a Trump Bible 50 years from now. I like to think that they’d be shocked by the audacity of it - by the fact that a guy peddled something so blasphemous and still locked up the religious vote. But I know Trump is probably getting royalties on the sale, so I guess they’ll just have to take my word for it.
They fact-checked constantly during the first half, which was a huge improvement over former debates. Honestly I thought this was better moderated than any previous debate involving Trump.
Harris campaign requested unmuted mics - it was Trump’s team that was worried about him making an ass of himself with interruptions. With that in mind they might be letting him talk because it’s what Harris wanted in the first place.
When my wife told me what he said I assumed it was an onion article. When she said it was real I assumed it was taken out of context - surely there was some policy proposal behind these comments, like a new federal stipend for caretakers. Nope - he genuinely seems to believe that the government’s role in childcare is reminding parents that they can ask friends/family for help, as if there’s a struggling parent out there who needs to hear this. I really don’t understand who he’s trying to reach with these comments - it’s like reminding homeless people that they can panhandle if they’re struggling, which is an obtuse way of saying “fuck you, you’re on your own.”
I’m torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you’re describing, but I really don’t know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it’s vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn’t been updated in 250 years is insane.
I’m with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.
Cheney is a fascinating example of how you can support every conservative policy and still be considered a RINO for suggesting that Trump shouldn’t be in charge. She’s proof that you can’t be a Republican today without kissing the ring.
A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.
This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.
My understanding is that there was no hard evidence and the witness did not wish to testify, so this was a plea deal to make him confess and give the victim closure. Still feels wrong given that he did confess, but if the alternative was no probation I guess this is better than nothing.
Didn’t the war in Iraq have overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress? Bush was guilty of acting on bad intelligence, but the country as a whole was guilty of succumbing to bloodlust and misdirected vengeance. The Patriot act also had strong bipartisan support. Gay marriage was so unpopular at the time that even Obama had to feign opposition to it when he first ran in 2008. Bush was a bad president IMO, but it’s hard not to be a little sympathetic when you consider the context of these decisions. The one good thing I’ll say about Bush is that he never seemed self-serving, so for that reason alone I don’t doubt his sincerity over the regret he seems to show for some of these things.
Withholding support to Israel would embolden the opposition here at home and have huge geopolitical implications abroad. I won’t argue over whether or not it’s the right thing to do, but I definitely wouldn’t characterize it as a “win” for any US administration.
From a political perspective it’s amazing how much of a lose-lose this situation has been for Biden and now Harris. Half the country is calling him “Genocide Joe” for supporting Israel while the other is calling him antisemitic for supposedly abandoning Israel. To be fair I think one side is arguing in bad faith and these aren’t equally valid positions, but regardless not a soul in this country seems to be content with our current approach - even if it’s intended as some sort of compromise.
I disagree with you but respect your honesty - you don’t deserve the downvotes. I’m sure you’re not the only one jaded enough by this situation to cast a protest vote.
Trump’s cognitive deficiencies are old news, whereas the Biden we’re seeing now is unrecognizable from the last campaign. Given the narrow margin Biden won by last time, that should be concerning to his supporters. You really think this is a media conspiracy?
Honestly at this point the DNC can pick someone - anyone - and I’d be fine with it.
To be fair I think it’s too early in Pete’s political career for me to say that he stands by what he says or for you to say that he doesn’t. I don’t think anyone can hold a candle to Bernie on ideological consistency - he would rather lose than compromise. We all admire him for that, but it makes him a better activist than politician. I say this as someone who donated to his campaign and voted for him twice.
I agree that Pete is the polar opposite, but I don’t know if it’s a bad thing. Early on he said that he wanted the primaries to be a debate of ideas, and that - if nominated - he would champion the platform of the party. That could be the MO of a grifter, or it could be someone who’s serious about restoring democracy. I don’t blame anyone for being skeptical, but if we’re dismissing him because we have concerns about his healthcare plan, I’d say we’re still living in 2016.
I agree that we have no idea if he’d actually go through with reforming the court if given the opportunity - I’m just pointing out that Democrats have openly called for reforming the court, on the presidential debate stage, as recently as 2019. It shouldn’t be viewed as a non-starter - especially when these ideas were coming from the so-called moderate wing of the party.
On the M4A topic, it’s crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn’t be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.
Reforming the Supreme Court was basically Pete’s thing during the primaries. He was talking about it years before Roe, Chevron, and absolute immunity. He suggested adding 6 more judges, 5 of which would be rotating appointments by the other 10. It’s a shame Biden won’t do anything about this - especially when there are other leaders in the party who would.
Private insurance used to offer flood insurance like 100 years ago, but to stay in business they had to raise premiums to a point where no one could realistically afford it (which is to say that living in a flood zone is not financially feasible for most people). The government had to step in with their own flood insurance program, which was tied to regulation intending to minimize the risk of flooding in at-risk zones so that premiums could remain affordable. Even these measures haven’t been sufficient to keep the program from running out of money, and we’ve been subsidizing it with taxpayer bailouts to keep it afloat.
All this is to say that private insurance is literally incapable of insuring against flood damage, so you can’t blame them for any of this. If you want to blame someone, blame Trump for rolling back standards that would have allowed FEMA to consider climate change in their risk models.