Kalbear

Not incredibly differently honestly. Either they have a majority to pass a law to repeal, or they don't.

More reporting on that attack. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/31/the-russian-army-just-launched-the-biggest-tank-assault-of-the-war/?sh=440140436e67

I think that might be a bit of it, but I also think that it represents a real issue with the economies. Namely, there are a lot of game companies that are making big bets on huge games that are not landing. Furthermore, the market for DLCs and consumables is going lower too. If you were betting on a game selling for $60 but making another 30-50 on transactions you're probably having major problems right now. Because when people start skimping and saving more they'll cut those DLCs a lot sooner than the game purchases.

Also note, @Jaxom 1974, that even if what you're worried about came to pass - that everything was controlled by Republicans - at least right now the law requires 2/3rds of the senate to withdraw from NATO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/congress-nato-exit-trump/ Of course that law itself could be removed by a simple majority, so it's not absurdly protected from shenanigans, but it's something. It's also not clear if the law is constitutional and could be challenged on that part too.

Well, shit. Folks, if he thinks this is the case you should be incredibly worried. To be clear I don't think that the House will switch to Republicans in this cycle, at least not right now. There are enough poor performing Rs in the House that I think it'd be a tough lift, and while gerrymandering is still a problem for Dems there's enough signs of support for dems that aren't Biden that I think it can narrowly switch back. Especially given how people are viewing the McCarthy/Johnson house. In order of probabilities, I would say that it's about 90% likely that the Senate goes to R, 60% POTUS, and 20% House. That will of course change depending on a great number of things. I would also say that even if the senate goes R there are a number of R senators that will push strongly against withdrawing out of NATO and have already shown spines against Trump. I don't think Murkowski or Romney would withdraw as an example. That said I don't think it really matters; all Trump needs to do is simply not do much of anything to back up NATO members. It'll get thrown into courts and be dragged out for years - or it might even cause another impeachment - but it hardly matters at that point. The damage will be done. I wanted to say that this is an excellent point I had not considered. Thanks! I suspect there are other wrinkles that could be done in this vein too - things like 'rotating' the troops and leaving the bases and equipment for an extended period of time, of moving allocated money around to do some of that (similar to what he did with the wall funding) - but you're right, it's not something he can just do.

I wasn't saying leaving NATO. He doesn't have to leave NATO in order to ignore the treaty requirements or get around that. Im well aware of the specific law they passed recently to require an act of congress to officially leave. My point is that there is nothing congress can do to force Trump to order troops to fight. There are a couple small things that would get jn the way of that - namely, troops that are under attack can respond without explicit authorization- which is why i said that Trump would have plenty of warning to withdraw those troops stationed in the baltics. And there is no NATO requirement for troop stationing. It's typical of you to ignore what I wrote.

There is one place that Trump is absolutely not lazy about - and that is the perceived threat of nuclear war. As commander-in-chief I believe he will also not need to do particularly much to do nothing. He simply has to say 'no'. And for something like Estonia it won't be a surprise, which would mean that Trump would have plenty of time to order troops withdrawn. Does congress have the authority to force Trump to order troops? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. We were talking about generalities with Scot and others - about the generality of a Republican schism and the general path of how things are going. Furthermore your thesis statement was that Good was going to get primaried because he was too extreme, when we both know what the story is - that Good will likely get primaried because of insufficient loyalty to Trump. Which part - that the sky is buckling, that things aren't that bad, or that 2024 will have the senate in likely control for Republicans? If it's the latter it's something that you've said. If it's the former - yeah, it's my opinion! Again, do you look at the current set of events - especially things like Ukraine funding or how the government has been funded or the speakership thing - and go 'yeah, this is not too bad'? Seems to have worked basically fine. But even if it didn't work, so what? Do you think that they're going to actually stop because it didn't work? Is that how Trump has operated - has he pivoted to the middle? My attempted point was to say that funding Ukraine's war with Russia was a relatively easy choice for congress. There was no troop involvement, the money directly benefitted American companies, it was largely seen as positive even by Republican voters - and they still couldn't do it. They've not been able to do it for the last 6 months. Funding and authorizing support for helping Taiwan against China in the event of a Chinese invasion or attack on Taiwan, where we're sending the actual Navy, air force and potentially some ground troops into harm's way - is a significantly harder lift. That's true, but they also aren't willing to go to war.

In general, primaries - especially the GOP ones - favor the more partisan leaners provided they are not causing major problems for the party as a whole. More recently it really comes down to Trump. Now here Good might be fucked - he supported DeSantis for a bit, and while he's apparently come back to roost a bunch of folks are trying to tie him to not supporting Trump well enough. Trump hasn't endorsed him yet. So...maybe? But it won't be because he's too extreme. It'll simply be because he's not sufficiently loyal to Trump. Am I particularly wrong about that, though? And you're 100% right that in congressional races Trump's team have underperformed. They still control the House, they will almost certainly control the senate in 2024 barring some very weird-ass shit, and Trump is currently polling well enough to win. If the sky hasn't fallen yet, it certainly is buckling. I don't know how you look at the current status quo and think 'well, this isn't all that bad'. Put it another way: we had a legitimate attempt at overthrowing the democratic succession of governance in the US and the main instigators of it are running and polling as the frontrunner. How is that not a sky is falling moment? Serious shutdown: one that lasts longer than 2 months. I would say that if Trump is elected it probably won't happen as badly - amusingly to me, I would say that it would more likely happen if Republicans are in power - but if Biden is and Trump is still alive chances are very good that if Republicans control any part of congress they will block it. I think that there are going to be enough extremist Republicans that are willing to burn the country down to hurt a Dem, and if Trump loses I think he'll be egging them on as hard as he can. One big one I can see ending right away is Taiwan. I do not see how congress in its current state or close to it authorizes funding - much less actual military use - to deal with China. Given the difficulties with Ukraine? Pfft, not a chance. I see that happening with Trump or Biden if it happens in the next 4 years, mind you. I don't think it'll happen because China is being shown to be way less prepared militarily than they thought, but it's certainly a possibility. I also expect Trump to try to pull out of NATO, and a lot of it will depend on how much Republicans control the various houses. If he doesn't pull out of NATO I think he'll just kill it via lack of funds. Biden will stay in, of course, but that lack of funding may also be a problem. For other alliances - I think Mexico is going to be real problematic soon too. Japan and Korea are other good possibilities, especially Korea.

I agree, that's what is happening to Good. But that's not what is happening in the aggregate to the GOP. It is not likely any time soon based on the existing trends that the GOP is going to be bending more moderately, at least not until they start losing significantly in the general. To add to the above, Good is going to be challenged in his primary and is likely not going to have a problem winning. Do you disagree? As to what is happening now or has been - sure? But it's going to get worse, and will likely have more extreme long term consequences than what we've seen. As an example, so far we have not seen a real serious shutdown last for any major length of time. So far we have not seen the US default on owed debt. So far we have not seen alliances with the US simply end. I think that's likely to change.

To yes and @DMC here, there will be plenty of consequences. People like MTG will be more close to the norm or the center of the Republican party. There will be even fewer moderates, and fewer people able to work with anyone else. There will likely be even more dysfunction in congress, especially if the houses or the executive are split from congress. The US may do things like default on debt or be considered significantly more risky of an investment. Allies will be unable to count on the US because the US cannot do simple things like support them in time of war. Domestic aid for disasters will be more difficult. But in terms of the actual Republican party existing, or having a multiparty system? No. The system is built to support exactly two parties. Three or more parties - even viable ones - will not be stable and will very quickly coalesce into two.

He is also not allowed to use it as collateral for 6 months.

I think on the Christians for Trump thing - it is a bit weird to me that so many Christians are entirely transactional in their politics instead of voting morally. I can't exactly fault them for that; it's not a bad strategy and in fact has gotten them more gains than virtually any other POTUS to date, in places that were apparently incredibly important to them. But it seems like a very weird set of things to square. Trump is by all accounts an absolutely atrocious human being;, especially by most morals Christians tend to espouse. In a more just world I would think that Christians would almost unanimously be against him and not just against him, but strongly so.

I'm sure he is. And my statement holds. A very sincere evangelical sincerely believes that if you don't believe like he does, you will go to hell. You will live in damnation and torture for eternity. Based on that sincere belief, there is virtually nothing that should be not considered when thinking about how to save someone's soul. Having a theocratic government that is repressive and restricts non-evangelical freedoms is not remotely the worst thing you can do.

It is wise - in fact, it's one of the only things that works - but it does tire you out. You do need some 'real' time. It's very similar to being an introvert; you can feel like you're extroverted in the moment, you can be outgoing and even do it autonomously (like, say, if you're drunk or stoned) - but afterwards you can need some breaks. This is also similar to masking and has similar pros and cons. You can take it further and work on improving things at a more base level, but being functional and the person you want to be in the situations you want to be in is far better than not. To sidetrack things, I've started doing the Sparavato treatment (ketamine nasal spray). The short term thought is apparently I really need to get high more often.

That is the conservative viewpoint entirely. Attacking them for hypocrisy is useless as there is no such thing. Anyone can practice their specific evangelical Christian patriarchy, and that's all the freedom they want.

Meanwhile, scotus delaying tactics work again, as SC district that was ruled gerrymandered too much will be used because it's too late to change. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-delay-prompts-federal-judges-act-south-carolina-redistri-rcna145267

Sam Bankman Fried sentenced to 25 years in prison. I thought a comment by Robert Reich was pretty accurate - the rich get punished only when they steal from other rich people.

Still has to be Requiem for a Dream.

It was done almost entirely offscreen.

Pretty much. I believe there's like a 3-page part where she has this weird-ass set of dreams and then is all 'fuck y'all'. That said, Madeline Pryor is 100% justified in going full villain, and not just because she has a fucking sexy costume

The scientist in me prefers agnostic to atheist.

I tend to agree, but that's pretty much a big part of his story. You need to show him be tempted by things and turn them down, and the drama is his heart wanting to go against his duties and morals. The morals always win, but it should always be hard as hell for us to see that. Conversely there's also value in Superman having to deal with threats he can't actually punch through. That makes the power level a lot more like Goku and whatnot, but Superman being clever is also kind of cool at times. I mean, Batman doesn't really have any arcs or changes either. He is unyielding and unchanging. I don't see why he's particularly more interesting other than he has better villains.

Superman doesn't need an arc. As stated elsewhere, Superman is a crazy fantasy about a person who has virtually unlimited power and is not corrupted by it.

Oh no, Joe Lieberman died. Anyway https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/politics/joe-lieberman/index.html

I'll try and explain a bit better.