180
submitted 3 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

President Biden’s policy agenda is incredibly popular, much more popular than his opponent’s. But Biden the man? Not so much.

The question now is whom to blame for the approval gap between the president and his agenda: voters, the media or Biden himself.

Democrats have long argued that their policies are more popular than those of Republicans. In a recent blind test conducted by YouGov, that was unmistakably true. The polling organization asked Americans what they thought about major policies proposed by Biden and Donald Trump without specifying who proposed them. The idea was to see how the public perceived ideas when stripped of tribal associations.

Biden’s agenda was the winner, hands down.

Of the 28 Biden proposals YouGov asked about, 27 were supported by more people than opposed them. Impressively, 24 received support from more than 50 percent of respondents.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago

Mueller: "I can't do it. Congress should handle it."

Congress: "We can't do it. The Court should handle it."

Supreme Court: "Nah."

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can't decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it's a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.

The guidance says:

  1. Courts cannot consider motive

  2. An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law

  3. Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ

  4. Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)

  5. Engagement with private parties is not an official act

  6. Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not

  7. Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist

So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it's done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.

That's a loophole the size of the Hoover Dam.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

You ignored a lot of other information in my comment.

[-] [email protected] 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that's planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It's not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.

Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It's not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don't even need evidence, they just need motive. We're real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago

So then nothing a President ever does can be considered premeditated. This timeline is fucking insane.

[-] [email protected] 75 points 1 day ago

I mean, that's what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he's operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?

I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they've opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there'd be nothing a court in this country could do about it.

Please, someone tell me I'm missing something.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Imagine how powerful leftist grassroots organizations would be if folks like you would dedicate the same amount of time and energy to voter engagement and activism that you devote to ranting and raving on political message boards. This country would be completely transformed in a matter of months.

Edit: Seriously, 6,800 comments over a 12 month period is almost 19 comments every single day of the year. That's borderline obsession, and it can't possibly be good for your mental health.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

You've offered no proof that it is, despite my asking several times. From what I can tell that's just your opinion, which is fine but carries significantly less weight.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

So his delegates are not pledged to Harris, they aren't required to support Harris, her name isn't on a single ballot in the country, Biden's name isn't on a single ballot in the country, and no one has officially been nominated. You've offered no proof to the contrary.

Whether you think a change is likely before ballots are finalized was not my question, merely whether or not you had proof that it's impossible.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As you suggest it’s a regulatory problem. There was a recent kerfuffle involving the Ohio ballot, which was solved by putting Biden/Harris on the ballot before they are officially nominated. So any changes made at the Democratic convention will come too late to change the Ohio ballot.

.....nnnnno. That's not what's happening in Ohio. From your article:

President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August

The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.

I really hate to repeat myself because it seems like you're engaging sincerely and at least trying to support your argument, but there are currently no ballots that have been formalized in the entire country. Biden and Harris have not been put on the ballot before they're nominated, they're being nominated before the ballot access deadline in Ohio. So quite simply, as long as the Democrats nominate any US-born person older than 35, that person's name will appear on the Ohio ballot. You have it quite literally backwards.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

partly because her name can’t be taken off the general ballot in multiple states

Again, where is your proof of this? Ballots haven't been finalized anywhere in the country, as Biden isn't even officially the nominee yet. You keep saying these things as if they're set in stone, but from what I can tell they're not. Do you have proof that ballots have been printed before the convention, or that states have closed the registration window for running mates before closing the registration window for candidates?

Note: I agree with the rest of what you said, for the most part.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

And sadly, the campaign response to this sentiment is not inspiring a lot of faith in their judgment. This after the NYT Editorial Board called on him to step aside:

“The last time Joe Biden lost the New York Times editorial board’s endorsement it turned out pretty well for him,” Biden campaign co-chair Cedric L. Richmond said in a statement.

Does he think that "LOL! Fuck you!" is the correct response here? The chorus of people in every corner of the country calling for him to step aside is deafening, and all he can muster is a Trump-style clapback?

Furthermore, at this point I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where asking the incumbent to drop out would be more justified. Like, how bad would it actually have to get for the party to admit, "hey guys, this isn't fixable, time for Plan B"? Incumbency advantage is huge, but it's certainly not all-powerful.

30
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Mod has been inactive for a year, and I’d like to take it over and help it generate more traffic.

62
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled in the last two decades due to climate change, according to a study released Monday.

The analysis, published in the journal “Nature Ecology & Evolution,” focused on massive blazes that release vast amounts of energy from the volume of organic matter burned. Researchers pointed to the historic Australia fires of 2019 and 2020 as an example of blazes that were “unprecedented in their scale and intensity.” The six most extreme fire years have occurred since 2017, the study found.

109
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

The latest insight comes from a study on butterflies in the Midwest, published on Thursday in the journal PLOS ONE. Its results don’t discount the serious effects of climate change and habitat loss on butterflies and other insects, but they indicate that agricultural insecticides exerted the biggest impact on the size and diversity of butterfly populations in the Midwest during the study period, 1998 to 2014.

7
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I deleted it when it didn't gain enough traction, and I'd like to revive it.

42
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

A major expansion underway inside Iran’s most heavily protected nuclear facility could soon triple the site’s production of enriched uranium and give Tehran new options for quickly assembling a nuclear arsenal if it chooses to, according to confidential documents and analysis by weapons experts.

Inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed new construction activity inside the Fordow enrichment plant, just days after Tehran formally notified the nuclear watchdog of plans for a substantial upgrade at the underground facility built inside a mountain in north-central Iran.

Iran also disclosed plans for expanding production at its main enrichment plant near the city of Natanz. Both moves are certain to escalate tensions with Western governments and spur fears that Tehran is moving briskly toward becoming a threshold nuclear power, capable of making nuclear bombs rapidly if its leaders decide to do so.

109
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Israel is up against a regional superpower, Iran, that has managed to put Israel into a vise grip, using its allies and proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shiite militias in Iraq. Right now, Israel has no military or diplomatic answer. Worse, it faces the prospect of a war on three fronts — Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank — but with a dangerous new twist: Hezbollah in Lebanon, unlike Hamas, is armed with precision missiles that could destroy vast swaths of Israel’s infrastructure, from its airports to its seaports to its university campuses to its military bases to its power plants.

But Israel is led by a prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has to stay in power to avoid potentially being sent to prison on corruption charges. To do so, he sold his soul to form a government with far-right Jewish extremists who insist that Israel must fight in Gaza until it has killed every last Hamasnik — “total victory” — and who reject any partnership with the Palestinian Authority (which has accepted the Oslo peace accords) in governing a post-Hamas Gaza, because they want Israeli control over all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including Gaza.

And now, Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet has fallen apart over his lack of a plan for ending the war and safely withdrawing from Gaza, and the extremists in his government coalition are eyeing their next moves for power.

They have done so much damage already, and yet not President Biden, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, nor many in Congress have come to terms with just how radical this government is.

Indeed, House Speaker Mike Johnson and his fellow G.O.P. mischief makers decided to reward Netanyahu with the high honor of speaking to a joint meeting of Congress on July 24. Pushed into a corner, the top Democrats in the Senate and the House signed on to the invitation, but the unstated goal of this Republican exercise is to divide Democrats and provoke shouted insults from their most progressive representatives that would alienate American Jewish voters and donors and turn them toward Donald Trump.

27
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Mark Robinson, the firebrand Republican nominee for governor in North Carolina, has for years made comments downplaying and making light of sexual assault and domestic violence.

A review of Robinson’s social media posts over the past decade shows that he frequently questioned the credibility of women who aired allegations of sexual assault against prominent men, including Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, actor Bill Cosby and now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. In one post, Robinson, North Carolina’s lieutenant governor, characterized Weinstein and others as “sacrificial lambs” being “slaughtered.”

Robinson has drawn scrutiny for his incendiary remarks on other issues, including about LGBTQ+ people, religion and other political figures. But his comments on domestic violence and sexual assault stand out for their tone and frequency, as well as Robinson’s repeated questioning of accusers.

While Robinson is, in some ways, emblematic of the Republican Party’s turn under Donald Trump toward rewarding inflammatory, sexist language, his dismissals of women threaten to test Robinson’s appeal with voters troubled by that history, in particular female voters.

45
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Last fall, out of public view, the North Carolina Supreme Court squashed disciplinary action against two Republican judges who had admitted that they had violated the state’s judicial code of conduct, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the decisions.

One of the judges had ordered, without legal justification, that a witness be jailed. The other had escalated a courtroom argument with a defendant, which led to a police officer shooting the defendant to death. The Judicial Standards Commission, the arm of the state Supreme Court that investigates judicial misconduct by judges, had recommended that the court publicly reprimand both women. The majority-Republican court gave no public explanation for rejecting the recommendations — indeed, state law mandates that such decisions remain confidential.

Asher Hildebrand, a professor of public policy at Duke University, explained that in the 2010s, North Carolina had policies designed to keep the judiciary above the political fray, such as nonpartisan judicial elections. However, the gradual dismantling of these policies by the Republican-controlled legislature has driven the court’s polarization, according to Hildebrand.

21
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Preventing local governments from reducing plastic waste is just one recent example of the many ways Republican lawmakers have used the state budget, theoretically a fiscal document, to weaken existing environmental regulations or prevent more.

Since taking power in 2011, GOP leaders have introduced dozens of environmental provisions in state budgets, rather than standalone bills. That includes 2023 provisions preventing North Carolina from joining a cap-and-trade program that could have limited greenhouse gasses released by the state’s power plants and stymieing Gov. Roy Cooper’s efforts to shift trucks across the state from diesel fuel to electric power.

Since 2017, state environmental officials have been grinding their way toward regulating these per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. While scientists know of thousands, DEQ identified eight present here that it intended to regulate in ground- and surface water.

But in April, the N.C. Chamber, the state’s powerful business interest group, urged the N.C. Environmental Management Commission to slow down and conduct more research before approving rules for the substances. Much of Chamber President Gary Salamido’s argument to delay setting new limits focused on new drinking water rules the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized this year for six of the eight PFAS the state is considering limiting.

He also pointed to the renewed Hardison Amendment, writing that regulators need to consider whether they are going further than the EPA’s rules.

352
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

A federal judge blocked most of a law championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that strictly limited transgender health care for adults and banned it completely for children.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle rejected a common mantra of the DeSantis administration, saying that “gender identity is real,” and that the state cannot deny transgender individuals treatment.

“Florida has adopted a statute and rules that ban gender-affirming care for minors even when medically appropriate,” Hinkle wrote. “The ban is unconstitutional.”

371
submitted 4 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.

view more: next ›

Blackbeard

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF