Shageletic posted:

Agree with this tho, but I just don't see how this will get accomplished. Their incentives aren't there. There's enough Vote Blue forever people that they can win enough to get their sinecures upon retirement.

Excelzior posted:

Rubellavator posted:

who cares what hillary wears

PoontifexMacksimus posted:

SixteenShells posted:

why didn't you photoshop the arrow going the other way

Shageletic posted:

I mean the Whigs collapsed because they couldn't get a uniform stance on slavery, breaking up with Nebraska Kansas and people in the North pissed off at the spread of slavery into terrotories to create another parry with the remnant making up the Know Nothing party like you said blaming catholic immigration for their problems. Both issues stem from economic arguments, material concerns not satisfactorily being met by the Whigs. This is a far cry from voting for a party that does nothing materially at all, like the Dems.

quote:

Agree with this tho, but I just don't see how this will get accomplished. Their incentives aren't there. There's enough Vote Blue forever people that they can win enough to get their sinecures upon retirement.

Nichael posted:

the lgbt acronym is getting so huge you're going to need to stretch the bumper sticker for it out over multiple vehicles

spacemang_spliff posted:

Does anyone really think Rubio would have sent out big beautiful checks?

HallelujahLee posted:

lol at still covering for his genocide loving buddy

Toph Bei Fong posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/ok_post_guy/status/1778224829998813221

I like how this person keeps posting the "Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey" done by professional historians as his evidence

Ham Equity posted:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4586780-senate-democrats-baffled-by-calls-for-sotomayor-to-step-aside/

Yeah, I just can't imagine why after the RBG thing and then the Feinstein thing people wouldn't want soon-to-be septuagenarians in spots that get lifetime appointments coming into an election where their side is likely to lose.

The 77-year-old, 65-year-old, and 74-year old quoted in this piece are understandably confused (given their age).

pencilhands posted:

Many young voters dislike both Biden and Donald Trump and aren't going to vote. A very polite way of expressing this is that some are what are euphemistically called "low-information voters" and blame Biden for things he can't control. It's like: "I read all about the eclipse and wanted to see it but it wasn't available in my state so I am going to blame the president. It's his fault." Many of them have no idea: (1) what Biden tried to do as president and (2) why he couldn't get it.

Kirsten Mansel (23) is a liberal who wants to teach Biden a lesson because he didn't cancel student loans or protect abortion. She is willing to accept a Trump presidency to stick it to Biden because she is angry. Maybe somebody ought to tell her that Biden tried to cancel student loans but the Supreme Court, full of Republican appointees, said he didn't have the authority to do that, and nevertheless he is trying to do what he can on the interest on the loans and other things. While he or she is at it, maybe someone should tell Kirsten that only Congress can make a law making abortion legal nationwide and all Republicans oppose that, so the votes aren't there.

Rubellavator posted:

it's cool that biden picked the dumbest way to do loan forgiveness and now it's just impossible

HallelujahLee posted:

ranking my list of hitlers

Nichael posted:

I did end up doing that sorta. Started with the one pointing right then went to the true ending slide so the metaphor would become completely literal.

Jen heir rick posted:

look, it's very complicated ok? lots of very smart people have looked into it, and this is just the best way to do it. loans can't just be forgiven. you have to apply formulas and poo poo until it adds up. interests have to be accounted for. middle men must be paid. otherwise it's unfair and profits might be lost.

pencilhands posted:

Many young voters dislike both Biden and Donald Trump and aren't going to vote. A very polite way of expressing this is that some are what are euphemistically called "low-information voters" and blame Biden for things he can't control. It's like: "I read all about the eclipse and wanted to see it but it wasn't available in my state so I am going to blame the president. It's his fault." Many of them have no idea: (1) what Biden tried to do as president and (2) why he couldn't get it.

Kirsten Mansel (23) is a liberal who wants to teach Biden a lesson because he didn't cancel student loans or protect abortion. She is willing to accept a Trump presidency to stick it to Biden because she is angry. Maybe somebody ought to tell her that Biden tried to cancel student loans but the Supreme Court, full of Republican appointees, said he didn't have the authority to do that, and nevertheless he is trying to do what he can on the interest on the loans and other things. While he or she is at it, maybe someone should tell Kirsten that only Congress can make a law making abortion legal nationwide and all Republicans oppose that, so the votes aren't there.

SixteenShells posted:

I'd like to run a hypothetical forward. Trump is a legitimate threat to democracy. He will spearhead a Christofascist takeover of the USA. Any pretense of democracy is eliminated, Trump is our new dictator on day one. In that scenario, do Sotomayor and the other liberals on SCOTUS and in Congress plan to keep their jobs? Like, say that dictator Trump keeps SCOTUS around and doesn't even fire any of them, and for some reason he keeps Congress around even though they don't decide anything meaningful. Are they going to willingly keep their seats while America turns into Nazi Germany 3.0 and lend legitimacy to its government with their presence?

SixteenShells posted:

So why all this hand-wringing about careers? If there's a real chance of all the above happening, isn't giving up your position in government to help elect Biden a no-brainer decision?

is pepsi ok posted:

Konnichiwa, Hillary desu.

spacemang_spliff posted:

they need a midwest white guy with a picture of a juggalo in there

VitalSigns posted:

Most likely. He voted for it twice. He might not have said "it should be a big beautiful $2000 check" for the second one, but he voted to approve $600

They kinda had to do something. People couldn't work, if you don't get the people some relief on a mass unemployment crisis, well that's the kind of thing that tends to end with politicians dangling from light poles.

E: also even if he privately opposed the checks, they were each a part of massive must-pass covid legislation, and the only way to block them would have been to veto the entire bill which would have touched off economic panic. No way would that have been worth it.

Even Trump backed down when his threat to veto the second bill because the checks weren't big and beautiful enough caused chaos

Halloween Jack posted:

I say I say I say Juche, son

Automata 10 Pack posted:

meanwhile joe biden could've tried to codified it when he had the house and senate (or well, did anything) but didn't, because he knew it would've been an electoral disaster for the republicans. which person in this scenario acted more uniquely evil?

pencilhands posted:

Many young voters dislike both Biden and Donald Trump and aren't going to vote. A very polite way of expressing this is that some are what are euphemistically called "low-information voters" and blame Biden for things he can't control. It's like: "I read all about the eclipse and wanted to see it but it wasn't available in my state so I am going to blame the president. It's his fault." Many of them have no idea: (1) what Biden tried to do as president and (2) why he couldn't get it.

Kirsten Mansel (23) is a liberal who wants to teach Biden a lesson because he didn't cancel student loans or protect abortion. She is willing to accept a Trump presidency to stick it to Biden because she is angry. Maybe somebody ought to tell her that Biden tried to cancel student loans but the Supreme Court, full of Republican appointees, said he didn't have the authority to do that, and nevertheless he is trying to do what he can on the interest on the loans and other things. While he or she is at it, maybe someone should tell Kirsten that only Congress can make a law making abortion legal nationwide and all Republicans oppose that, so the votes aren't there.

spacemang_spliff posted:

couldn't biden just put loans in forbearance and set interest rates to 0% for the entirety of his presidency (thus giving people a reason to reelect him)

SixteenShells posted:

something something covid was emergency circumstances so Trump had legal justification to start it but Biden doesn't have it to continue it. i dunno. i agree with you.

gradenko_2000 posted:

OJ Simpson, MF Doom and John Lewis blowing out RBG's back walls in heaven

SixteenShells posted:

now i'm imagining a one-way sign with the arrow pointing down as a visual metaphor

also, neat! i've always been fond of the sincere approach to presentations. keeps it interesting for the audience

spacemang_spliff posted:

couldn't biden just put loans in forbearance and set interest rates to 0% for the entirety of his presidency (thus giving people a reason to reelect him)

quote:

The deal reached by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to raise the nation’s debt limit would force the administration to resume collecting federal student loan payments and interest for millions of Americans at the end of the summer.

The agreement, the text of which was unveiled Sunday evening after weeks of negotiations between the White House and GOP leaders, would terminate the ongoing pause on monthly payments and interest after Aug. 30.