I mean, yes? That's kind of the point. This is how we shift the conversation and put pressure on politicians. Put these bills forward and make people vote them down on the record, so those votes can be used against them.
Not actually a doctor.
I mean, yes? That's kind of the point. This is how we shift the conversation and put pressure on politicians. Put these bills forward and make people vote them down on the record, so those votes can be used against them.
It's better to have useful comments. Long odds are that somebody who writes comments like this absolutely isn't writing useful comments as well - in fact, I'm pretty sure I've never seen it happen. Comments like this increase cognitive overhead when reading code. Sure, I'd be happy to accept ten BS useless comments in exchange for also getting one good one, but that's not the tradeoff in reality - it's always six hundred garbage lines of comment in exchange for nothing at all. This kind of commenting usually isn't the dev's fault, though - somebody has told a junior dev that they need to comment thoroughly, without any real guidelines, and they're just trying not to get fired or whatever.
Honestly? Pretty well, relative to the "cry about it and do nothing" strategy.
The article literally tells you that this was done before, to give us the 40 day standard we now have. It worked before, and the article also points out that other countries have recently reduced work weeks under 40 hours. How is it hard to imagine that something that factually has happened could happen?
You aren't wrong, in a way. I'm nearing fifty and Biden is arguably the most progressive president in my lifetime. The problem is, that says more about the quality of presidents in my lifetime than it does about Biden, and with the climate crisis and encroaching global fascism, we don't have anymore time to wait. The Democrats are doing more, now, because pressure from the left has convinced them that they have to, but the leadership is still dragging their feet in defense of corporate profits as much as they can. The fact that they are doing more doesn't mean it's time to lower the pressure - it means the pressure is working, and we need to dial it up.
Weird. Booleanish isn't a built-in, I'm pretty sure. I'd like to see the definition.
The pardon power should be eliminated, and that's been clear since Nixon was pardoned. Sure, just about every president has a feel-good set of pardons, people who were railroaded by bad laws and bad court practices, but those corrections are only a tiny fraction of the outrageous injustices committed by our system, and their existence is used to justify the injustice in the first place - "oh but surely there will be a pardon for people who really need it" - as if depending on a single King-figure at the top to make good decisions, instead of improving systems, was ever a good idea. But in the meantime, just about every president also has a list of political pardons they trade for favors, or use for people who committed crimes on behalf of the president, or the party. Why the fuck does it make any sense at all to say "hey, this person was elected head of the executive branch, they should be able to just shield people from the rule of law", if the rule of law is an important basis of a free democracy? It's weird, when you think about it. End the pardon.
Characterizing the voters as "lazy" is really failing to understand how bad legislators stay in office. We need to reform our electoral systems to make legislators more accountable to democratic oversight, not impose arbitrary limits that take the power away from the voters.
With term limits, the Congress would lose institutional knowledge. When a new member of Congress came in, they would only have lobbyists to give them introductions, teach them the ropes. Legislation is a difficult job that requires professionals, not just a bunch of newbies. We would be absolutely signing over the Congress to complete corporate control.
More democracy is better.
Less democracy is worse.
Oh, they can read, they know exactly what they are doing. The Republic has had enemies within from the start, and now they control the most powerful branch of government.
I mean, they actually can. That's a completely facetious argument. Laws can set standards without defining everything. It's done all the time.
Because the Democrats are conservatives.
I barely know Vim, I'm an Emacs guy. Every time I pair with a colleague using an IDE, I find myself having to exercise great restraint, and not complain about how slow and fussy everything they do is. When I've worked with skilled vimmers, I have to admit that they invoke the deep magic nearly as efficiently as I do. Hotkeys? Pshaw, child's play.
Two things can be happening. People with a legitimate moral concern, such as myself, don't actively act against that concern by helping elect a candidate who would make that concern even worse. There are ways to express our anger and sorrow about Biden's handling of this without supporting Trump.
Voting uncommitted in a primary isn't going to help Trump. After election, after election, after election, where we've been desperately trying to tell angry, fed-up voters that the time to express that is in the primary, and they have to vote against the worst candidate in the general election, turning around and telling them now that they can't even vote how they want in the goddamn primary absolutely will help Trump.
Is that an act of an insane person? It's apparently legal, now. Do you broadly think that using violence against tyranny is insane? Our founders committed their lives and fortunes to the violent overthrow of tyranny. It would be much easier, sitting in the oval office, with legal authority granted to him by the very people he would be targeting, to authorize the extrajudicial execution of a few traitors. Do you think that extrajudicial execution is insane? Then you'll have to admit that most presidents in the last few decades were insane, especially Obama. Is it only insane when the target is white people in power, rather than brown-skinned people overseas?
I'm not commenting, at this time, on whether it would be moral, or wise, but insane? I can't see how.
The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says "I'm suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency", what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.
I'm less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I'm not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side's oppo-research wouldn't. But hey, can't hurt. I'm guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.
when you would literally get a slip of paper that showed you the lyrics.
Insert "If Those Kids Could Read, They'd Be Very Upset" meme here.
The Columbine shooters did not use hunting guns. We have better access to mental health care than in the past. We also have greater access to more deadly guns. Countries with strong gun control do not have our problem with mass shootings. Implementing strong gun control has been proven to stop mass shootings. A lot of money has been spent by arms dealers to convince you the the problem is your fellow humans, and not the largely unregulated flow of machines of death supplied for capitalist profit.
Should we have better access to mental healthcare, and intervention programs? Sure. Funny, though, how the people insisting it's all about mental illness and not about the gun profiteers also usually oppose any public spending on mental healthcare as well.
Pretty sure they meant to not have review. Dropping peer review in favor of pair programming is a trendy idea these days. Heh, you might call it "pairs over peers". I don't agree with it, though. Pair programming is great, but two people, heads together, can easily get on a wavelength and miss the same things. It's always valuable to have people who have never seen the new changes take a look. Also, peer review helps keep the whole team up to date on their knowledge of the code base, a seriously underrated benefit. But I will concede that trading peer review for pair programming is less wrong than giving up version control. Still wrong, but a lot less wrong.
No, you absolutely transparent troll, the people talking about the impact of the primaries and the steps the Democratic leadership need to take before the general to win and stop Republicans are not Republicans. Just stop. We all know what you are doing.
It's not an accident. The country is moving left, and the right-wing Democrats are afraid of losing control of the party. They almost did, twice. They don't take the "the other guy is Hitler" rhetoric seriously, themselves. They aren't worried about losing their power if the Republicans win the Whitehouse, or even both branches of Congress, because it's all one big club, and they won't be kicked out, as long as they go along to get along, but they are terrified that a leftist rise will take the reigns of the Democratic party from them, and then they really will be out of power.
Github != Git
The article describes it as
a visit that is believed to be the first stop by a president or vice president to an abortion clinic.
Can you name a prior instance? I'd really be surprised, to be honest. And hey, I am no Harris fan, but this is still a striking action.
Yes, but it's more than that. The electoral college only affects the presidency. We also need ranked choice voting. The first-past-the-post system assures the dominance of two parties, which can play the voters off each other to do whatever the donor/capitalist class wants. Mandatory voting and fully publicly financed elections would also be huge wins.
Our democracy is deeply broken, but it is a democracy. If we lost it, you'd just get the batshit insane party candidate put directly in, and they could do whatever they wanted.
This really feels like false equivalency. Yes, the MAGA crowd has a delusional belief that they are an overwhelming majority, and that electoral losses must mean a rigged election. They are ready to try to take power by force, they've demonstrated that, and there are high up instigators pushing them that way. But "the left" isn't really Democrats, and either way, I don't see any likelihood of a revolution from Leftists or Democrats just in response to an election. Mass protests, yes, but not revolution. Now, if the next election after that is suspended, then we might be close.
And it has a whole set of options based on common ls options. Classic and brilliant.
My only quibble is that I think the top marginal rate should go back at least to the 94% it was in 1944, not just 70%. In fact, I'm not sure there is any reason the top marginal rate shouldn't just be permanently set to 100%, with the only variable being how high that margin is.
Self awareness would be an apology, not "Huck Huck I don't care who dies as long as they aren't rich like me, lol". We see real self awareness from more leftist Congress critters all the time, although the capitalist media tends to paint it as bad, somehow. I'm glad you only "almost respect" this tone deaf statement.
Do you not understand what a primary is?
And that right there is why thugs with badges always get acquitted. A cop isn't a judge, jury, or executioner. I don't care what she thought she knew already, there is no excuse for this kind of violent assault against someone who still holds the legal presumption of innocence. She is a criminal and belongs behind bars.
All of these are classically liberal positions, and most of them are compatible with progressivism, and with socialism. Admittedly, since liberalism is the foundation of the USA, and the global norm today, classical liberalism is technically a conservative perspective, now, but it really isn't what most people have meant by "conservative" for the last hundred years or so.
It's also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it's not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn't be able to actually live a full life - at some point you're vulture food without society. We're cooperative, tribal animals. That's our strength, and we've built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
That's kind of inevitable, and not such a bad thing. The president is one person. One person shouldn't be deciding what is right arbitrarily. For the president to be looking at what the people want, that's a good thing. Now, our democratic systems are deeply flawed, so that "what the people want" and "what improves electoral chances" are not as closely tied as they should be, but that's another matter.
Yes, you are correct, our democracy is severely flawed and limited, and we should fix that. I haven't seen anybody say otherwise. Becoming fascist isn't going to help fix it.
Yes, I completely agree, so far as I can without looking up your post and comment history to confirm that you do what you are saying here you do, but taking your word for that. Good faith criticism isn't what Pan_Ziemniak seemed to be describing.
Do you think that's a realistic way to keep sufficient modern Internet traffic moving?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn't the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That's not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what's most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It's far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
So many people consider any kind of nuance to be weakness and failure.
I'm nearly fifty, now. Why am I disillusioned by capitalism? Because the illusion is thin and flimsy. I really hope the disillusionment of millennials isn't just because they don't have a good enough retirement plan, or anything else that can be easily fixed. I hope that they are waking up to realize that giving unelected, unaccountable, private owners of capital control over the production and distribution of goods, services, and information, is an extremist, antidemocratic idea, that is driving the global climate crisis, and the slide toward fascism.