TrackerNeil

Not at all; I was speaking of the electorate. I don't see any strong evidence that voters reward good behavior, or that they punish misbehavior. What I think is that voters respond to the fundamentals, and that, no matter how badly a party screws up, it will be back in power within 4-8 years. You'd think that after Iraq, Katrina, and the 2008 recession, the Republican brand would have been damaged beyond repair, yet in 2010 they retook the House, in 2014 the Senate, and in 2016 the whole shebang. By 2020 Republicanst lost it all again, and then four years later they were back in the saddle. This after the Republican president instigated an armed insurrection against his own government. If voters were really attruned to screw-ups and venality, the GOP wouldn't have won an election in two decades, but they've won about half of them. Since 2000, Republicans have done well in 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, 2016, and 2024. Democrats have done well in 2006, 2008, 2012, 2018, 2020 and (I guess) 2022. That record does not convince me that voters are keeping a close eye, or any eye at all, on the scruples or success record of the politicians they elect.

Sure there will be consequences, but if the last ten years of politics have taught me anything, it's that voters don't reward honor and punish venality, and anyone who needs proof of that need only look in the White House, or on the Supreme Court. The New York Times might squawk about this or that Democrat getting the facts wrong, but who cares? Ronald Reagan couldn't summon a fact if it meant the firing squad, and he did just fine in politics. I think Democrats need to worry a bit less about getting the specific facts right and a bit more about winning the image war. We should do everything we can to get voters angry at Republicans, and if that means fudging the truth...I can live with that. After two Trump terms, I can definitely live with that. Maybe it won't work--voters have short memories after all. However, if they are going to forget all of this anyway, then they'll forget the dishonesty right along with it.

I see nothing lazy about my proposal at all; connecting everything healthcare-related to Republicans will take a lot of work, and time, and money. It's worth it. Say whatever you need to say to make OBBB look like the stinkiest, most offensive piece of legislation ever conceived by the mind of man. I have another suggestion, while I am at it. As the effects of OBBB start to be felt across the country, Democrats should not let Congress pass any measure that would exempt red states from some of the pain, even if the occasional blue-state sop is thrown in. Filibuster the fuck out of anything that would exempt clinics in Nebraska, or hospitals in rural Kentucky, or anywere else Republicans find votes. Republicans caused this pain, and they can live with it. No freebies.

Josh Barro, whom I often find a source of good sense, has something to say about the OBBB: I think he's largely right; because there are so many other factors that will affect just how this terrible law is implemented, we can't make many solid predictions. I do have a suggestion for how Democrats can help ensure the political effect of the OBBB is negative. Lie about it. Seriously. Just blame every health care problem on the OBBB, and let Republicans spend time and lung-power explaining why that's wrong. The bill was rushed through Congress, so most Republican congresspeople don't really understand what they voted for and therefore won't be able to refute Democrats' accusations in any substantive or memorable way. Also, as has been said, when you are explaining, you're losing. Voters will mostly tune out explanations anyway, so what's the downside? That George Will might get angry? That the Wall Street Journal will run a scathing op-ed? Ten years ago I would never have considered endorsing outright dishonesty from politicians, but it's been a long ten years. Republicans smeared Democrats by lying about the ACA, so now I think it is time Democrats returned the favor.

I think Musk was just about born to run a third party. A self-involved, narcissistic quest centered around self-promotion and philosophical posturing rather than making actual, lasting, substantive policy changes? Yeah, Elon can absolutely carry that Ring to Mordor.

There are "establishment" reasons for Democrats to reject Cuomo; namely, his steadfast dedication to keeping Republicans in charge of the NY state senate for years. While I can accept that Democratic officeholders will occasionally vote against the party--that happens--I do not accept Democratic officeholders doing their level best to keep their own party out of power. Cuomo did much to encourage that state of affairs, and IMO that's reason enough to refuse to support him.

Believe me, I'm aware that my position has been amply challenged here. I'm not sure how well it's been understood, but it's definitely been challenged.

I never argued that. I said a single assertion by Amy Coney Barrett made sense, nothing more. So I think you might be responding to someone else? Edited to add: To prevent a bunch of back-and-forth, let me state that I approve of laws that ensure trans adults can work, rent apartments, be doctors or teachers or whatever, adopt kids, seek the care they need or desire, and otherwise enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Bostock does a lot of that, and that's good!

It is, and fortunately the court already ruled in Bostock that discrimination against trans people is a lot harder to carry out. I think that's a good thing.

If you know that a person is into same-sex partners, you know that person is homosexual. While it is true that you don't know that about strangers, it is still behavior you can observe. You could look at someone's social media, or find a wedding photo, talk to their friends or relatives...something like that. Admittedly, it's not like finding out that someone is an ethnic minority, which you can often tell just by looking at them, which is why gays and lesbians have had cover, to some extent. In his career, Matt Bomer pretended to be straight for a long time, but it's not like Idris Elba could have pretended to be white. That doesn't mean, however, that you'd have to rely only on Bomer's word that he was gay all that time. What behavior could anyone observe that would definitively say someone is trans? One could rely on stereotypes, I suppose, but that's not something a court is going to be able to apply as a test.

Not by my lights, no. You can tell if someone is gay: Anyone who consistently and exclusively (or nearly so) dates same-sex people is homosexual. Easy peasy. Doesn't mean you can tell that at a glance, true, but there is some objective standard against which observations can be made. You don't have to rely solely on the testimony of the person. As to queer people, I'm not sure what you mean by that term--people seem to use that word to indicate a great many things. So on that one I will pass.

This guy takes Barrett to task, so I read her concurring opinion for myself. Where I think ACB is weakest is her insistence that, to be a suspect class, a group must have experienced de jure discrimination, and not merely de facto. That would seem to indicate that as long as no one has legislated directly against a class of people, there is no discrimination of which the Court need take note. That strikes me as...well, disconnected from reality. Yes, I know that constitutional protections do not apply to purely private behavior; individuals are allowed to thumb their noses at any group they dislike, not invite them to parties, give them mean looks, etc. However, there are ways for public officials to discriminate without outright breaking the law: requests can be ignored, permit applications subjected to unusual scrutiny, assistance delayed, and so forth. To act as if these do not constitute de jure discrimination, or any discrimination, is like saying poor Americans just do not suffer discrimination. I certainly wouldn't try to argue that. Where I think ACB has a point is in her assertion that trans people do not share “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” that would qualify them as a suspect class. She's not wrong. Trans people take hormones or not, get surgery or not, dress differently or not, change their names or not, require certain pronouns or not...that's a lot of variability. In fact, we are told that the only way to know if someone is trans is to ask them. That's not to say trans people don't exist--and despite the video I don't sense ACB is saying that--but it means there's no sure way to know who is trans and who isn't. That means the suspect class cannot really be known by any means other than personal testimony, and how is any court to deal with that? I'm not wild about legislators getting between doctors and patients, but ACB is not completely off her rocker here.

It's one thing for John Roberts to let Republicans illegalize abortion, because that's not his problem. It's quite another for Roberts to let Republicans turn the federal courts into an advisory body, because that is very much his problem.

This IS a problem, which is why in my group everybody who joins knows that at some point they are expected to get behind the screen, or at least collaborate with the person who does. That might mean being the sole referee, or splitting the job with someone, or even just taking on a few tasks here and there. If the group is a community, then the entire group pitches in. Has anyone tried DC20? It's not officially released, but you can get the test pdfs. I've playtested it twice and I think it's neat. One prominent feature is that it does a similar action economy to what is found in Pathfinder 2, but IMO a lot better.

First of all, no. Second, Trump can't make that deal because the president has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. That's Congress and the states. Trump could, I suppose, encourage Republicans to go along with this, but I doubt he'd have much effect. Republicans have won too many presidential elections on the Electoral College to abandon it now. Third, you never make a deal with Trump. He is selfish, erratic, and untrustworthy in the extreme. If he can cheat, he will cheat. Fourth, no.