“And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Both quotes from Thomas Jefferson, which isn’t to say that that it’s true - only that our founders expected us to defend our liberties with violence if necessary.
So two wrongs make a right I guess? Why shouldn’t we be holding all these people accountable?
Nothing short of an electoral landslide in 2026 is going to save us from our current situation. For that to happen, we need the Democratic party to offer a clear and compelling contrast to Trump. If integrity ends up being a campaign issue - which seems likely given Trump’s track record - then it helps if we can be the party of integrity. Biden’s decision to pardon his son - even after saying that he wouldn’t - undermines this. The next campaign hasn’t even started yet and it’s already taking on water. How is that not depressing? Turn on any conservative radio show and you’ll hear how they’re spinning this to cancel our every corrupt thing that Trump has ever done.
Democrats are pissed because all we had left after this election was our integrity. Biden can do what he wants honestly - he doesn’t owe us anything - but this is still depressing.
Trump should just come clean and admit that he plans to betray Ukraine.
But first I think he’s going to pardon Hunter Biden. He’ll get to look like he’s rising above politics (despite Hunter not being a political figure) while painting Democrats as hypocrites for prosecuting their political rivals. Then he’ll pardon anyone associated with January 6th, using the Biden pardon as cover. Then, once he’s proven all the fascist rhetoric wrong, he’ll seek his revenge.
You don’t see the overlapping appeal? It’s about authenticity - not policy. Bernie is as authentic as they come. If he’s not running, the Libertarian party is a natural second choice - you have to be pretty sure of yourself to stand on a debate stage and argue for letting people die in the street. Trump had that same energy in this last campaign, so in hindsight I’m not surprised that he won over these people.
I get the impression that Harris plans to drag out the war in Ukraine with continued US support while Trump plans to end it quickly by withholding support. That’s a consequential difference as far as I’m concerned. If Trump were in charge now I expect we’d already be at war with Iran. Remember when he had Soleimani killed in 2020? I don’t think he’d be nearly as reluctant about supporting Israel if he were in charge. I agree that Taiwan is a powder keg, but I’m not sure what we should be doing differently there - curious what you’re getting at there.
Isn’t Trump like super isolationist? Ask a Ukrainian who they prefer to win and I think they’ll have a pretty consistent answer.
I think I’m just sensitive because I’m pro-choice but constantly get painted as heartless and uncaring by my pro-life family. Viable or not, I feel something for these unborn things, just like my family - the only difference is that I don’t prioritize my feelings over the rights of other people, nor do I shy away from the fact that abortions can be necessary and merciful. I am an ally in this fight, but if you’re dismissing the miracle of life as nothing more than a medical condition, you’re not helping the cause - to some extent you’re a liability to those of us trying to actually win people over.
I don’t know why but “person” in quotations just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t think we have to dismiss the value of an unborn life in order to support abortion - they’re not mutually exclusive. In this case I would argue that there were two tragedies, one committed by “God” and the other by the state of Texas.
I do find it interesting that the “actual” employment rate was 7% higher in 2000 than it is now. I get that we have an older population now, and proportionally more retirees as a result, but isn’t that relevant to our economic health? Rather than patting ourselves on the back for doing a good job despite an aging population, shouldn’t we be talking about how to turn this trend around? Italy, Japan, and China are about a generation ahead of us on this issue, and they’re totally freaking out - maybe we should too.
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.
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.
Wasn’t jury nullification historically used to sanction hate crimes against minorities? I agree that it shouldn’t be a banned topic, but I also understand how it could be a call to violence in certain contexts.