I’m not saying the other side’s perspective is at all based on reality…it just looks the same, purely appearances because they’re…born vaginally.

The media young people watch are also idealistic. Biden losing the election is only worse in every way on the issue they care about.

For what little it’s worth, Biden has at least warned Netanyahu about the damage his war is causing to Israel’s international standing. There’s not a single Republican that would do that.

More importantly, is the media young people watch building up any alternative to Biden? Or do they just leave people disenfranchised and in a mental sea of despair and political paralysis?

It looks the same from the other side.

Username check sout

• Pros

  • If you’re the leader, you get to will stuff willy nilly and have it carried out by your party.
  • If the leader likes you, you get the support of knowing those in power have your back.
  • If the leader is indifferent to you, in most cases, you can fly under the radar.
  • If the leader hates you, your run-in with suffering from totalitarianism will be relatively quick

• Cons

  • If you’re the leader, you have to keep up the act and watch your back. With total power comes abject fear of reality.
  • If the leader likes you, forget thinking for yourself. Your identity is the party. Whatever aspirations you have for yourself either be hidden deep, deep within you, or murdered altogether.
  • If the leader is indifferent to you, should you somehow get in trouble, you’re on your own.
  • If the leader hates you, your run-in with living your best life won’t ever happen because some pissant of a human being has scary feelings.

You and me, both.

Jason Stanley has been talking about this for yearsl.

Patricia Roberts-Miller has been talking about demagoguery generally also since forever, which laid the conditions for Trump to rise as the eminent demagogue. In fact, I prefer her analysis over Stanley’s. Stanley, and many historians, think of fascism from the top down: Mussolini or Hitler showed up and charismatically led otherwise good people into evil.

Not so. People were already scapegoating Jews and minorities and dissatisfied with their lives. Hitler and Mussolini just stepped into the a pre-existing national political role. Similarly, Trump’s racism and fake news and whatnot were already trends in American society. He just took what was there an ran with it.

It’s why, even if Trump goes to jail, American fascism will stick around. There are plenty of regular people willing and able to undermine liberty for their personal security.

…yeah…but also, we all need to want Republicans to lose spectacularly.

God damn it. It’s been true that long?

Why can’t you take an average of global average ocean, surface, and air temperatures? That seems like it’d be…an okay…estimate…

…why is this so common on Lemmy?

You have accused poor li’l Tim about ignoring stuff and making a bad faith argument…but you’re ignoring context.

Tech Lover Tim is just explaining that, while it’s just blue states for now, the stunts are to force the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether those states can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot for his roll in leading an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment.

It’s literally just an explanation. The last bit of their interpretation of the consequence of the Supreme Court’s lack of ruling derives from that explanation.

In turn, your response is overly aggressive by assuming Tim is making a slippery slope argument with a moral quality you clearly find disagreeable. But you’ve ignored the explanation altogether. It’s like you isolated the conclusion and, regardless of the premises, tried to claim it’s morally depraved.

The nature of the conclusion derives from the premises! Where’s the moral depravity in the explanation? And why didn’t you show that work before asserting that they’re arguing in bad faith?

Now who would’ve thought that carving out the tiniest legal area for slavery would be exploited by a slave state? Who could have possibly had the foresight to see that not abolishing slavery leaves open the possibility that it appears again?

Right, that’s literally what rent is for.

I, for one, took a single class on the history of the Middle East when I began college for the second time five years ago. So…my feelings, whatever they are, are both informed and justified.

So :P

Mmhmm…using hard sciences to explain social science goes awry real quick. Just ask every soulless neoclassical economist that admires Milton Friedman.

I get the analogy to the extent that I can as someone who hasn’t studied thermodynamics. I also agree with the author from a humanities and social science perspective…but ugh…I cannot condone the use of hard sciences to explain society.

That America hasn’t historically been the kind of country that would do something like enact and enforce laws banning contraception between married couples, inter-racial marriage, elective abortion, etc. is such an absurd claim on its face that naturally these opinions don’t come right out and say something like that.

I mean…he’s not wrong. America is definitely the kind of country that would do exactly that.

Whitewashing history, even for noble reasons, is bad.

I don’t think that means what he thinks it does…

Now the difference between right wing and liberal judicial legislation here is striking, in that, with the exception of affirmative action, liberal judicial legislation, as noted above, has tracked actual or emerging national consensus on all the issues where it has legislated. Meanwhile, right wing judicial legislation has depended on the many anti-democratic features of the larger political system to allow it to impose judicially legislated outcomes that DO NOT have anything like majority national support: Most Americans support gun control, national health care, campaign finance reform, voting rights, and Democratic presidential candidates. So this isn’t actually a “both sides” situation, except in the most superficial sense.

Again, yes, thank you!

Also, to the extent that I agree the liberal judicial legislation tracks actual or emerging national consensus where it legislates, then it would seem to be fine. The will of the people and all that. Roe v. Wade’s rulings didn’t threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the same way that overturning it did. The problem of the current anti-democractic Supreme Court rulings is their lack of national support, imho, not that it’s judicial legislation.

But the bottom line here is that the role of the Supreme Court as a quasi-legislature in American politics is becoming increasingly problematic. What ought to be done about this is pretty straightforward: Term limits, an expanded SCOTUS, and the elimination of the Senate taking part in the confirmation process would be a good start.

I’m not quite convinced of that. Particularly, why would we eliminate the Senate taking part in the confirmation process? Imagine Trump just nominating Ted Cruz to the SCOTUS without any sort of confirmation hearing. Hell nah!

She doesn’t even mention whether or how she’s using the saved $2.2 million. I also wouldn’t hold my breath for a replacement or even an enhancement of existing programs.

She says it costs $2.2 million to feed them kids, with the federal government covering the other $2.2 million.

Let’s set aside that Iowa has an FY24 spending budget of $8.5 billion, out of which $2.2 million is basically nothing…

Rather, let’s make this a 🅲🆄🅻🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆆🅰🆁 🅸🆂🆂🆄🅴! Parental rights, right? That thing where parents can uncritically direct “the care, custody, and control of their minor children.” It sanctifies the views of parents, elevating them over government intrusion. If a federal program provides $40 a month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs via an EBT card, then, presumably, those parents are making the best choices for their children.

Right?

Not so! says Kim Reynolds. Low-income families are too stupid, she implies, not to give their kids nutritious foods when childhood obesity has become an epidemic. By not participating the federal program then, Reynolds is ostensibly protecting children. But really, her non-participation undermines sanctified parental choices in Iowa to provide for their kids.

And who is she to supersede parental rights? A Republican governor.

I know the kids don’t know any better and it’s our job as adults to get them through childhood, but my blood boils when they get loud or demand attention.

It sounds like you still expect them to know better, to be better than the sociopathic children they are.

I got $5 betting Francis Howell Families has a common conservative donor with Moms For Liberty.

I like how they revoked an anti-racism:

The resolution, which made a pledge to “speak firmly against any racism, discrimination, and senseless violence against people regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ability,” was removed from school buildings.

Francis Howell Families is a champion and benefactor for racism, discrimination, and especially senseless violence against everyone for any and every reason. If that weren’t true, why would they revoke the resolution?