291–300 of 466 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, IMF rules and EU neoliberal orthodoxy actually work. Have a look at the development of Greek unemployment numbers over the last decade or so. It has been a steady downward march, with Covid merely a minor blip. (Having said that, unemployment is still at something like 10%. That's bad, but far from 'basket case' territory.)
because thr youth left in droves? Empty house == good statistics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can't run within the Constitution if it isn't changed. OTOH, his concern about whether his actions are Constitutional and the ability and willingness of any other institution to impose meaningful consequences on his unconstitutional acts don't support the conclusion that his future actions will be limited to what the Constitution allows.
A constitutional amendment requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. Even getting one proposed requires 2/3 of both houses of congress. This is not going to happen. Simply ignoring the constitution and cancelling the vote? There's no way he will be able to shift the Overton window that far in ~3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump can't run for election again as it's his second term. Voting doesn't apply.
That's just a dumb rule and only losers would follow it. /s Trump's made no secret about the fact that he doesn't intend to leave office, his enablers have disdain for democracy and want a king. They very well may pull it off, as they've done whatever they liked regardless so far. I want to be wrong about this but my hopes are tempered.
And even with purges at the FBI, US Marshals Service, and Secret Service, I have to believe there are still enough people in those organizations that would not stand for Trump illegally remaining in office.
Just because someone is a Republican, it doesn't mean they'd support a lifetime dictator in office.
Of course, if it comes down to the military to ensure the proper and legal transfer of power, we're well and truly screwed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. If Pete is the Democratic candidate, it's a freebie to the Republicans. I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate.
> gay man i think you're wrong and i certainly don't live in a bubble. but the reason i think you're wrong is not that america is progressive enough accept a gay man but because he's basically not gay; he's absolutely the least gay presenting man in the history of gay presenting men (exaggerating a little). he has no lisp, not an ounce of flamboyancy, nothing, zilch, nada. I'm aware he's fully out and there are photo…
The amount and shamelessness of sycophancy that modern American politicians cultivate is staggering (Trump being the chief example, of course - but seeing this with someone as relatively obscure as Pete is also spectacular).
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-interview-god-bee...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2028, The State of Indiana is going to issue a corrected birth certificate for Pete Buttigieg showing him to be 32 years and therefore not eligible to be president.
I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. If Pete is the Democratic candidate, it's a freebie to the Republicans. I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate.
I hope he runs, at the very least to keep LGBT people visible in all types of politics, but doesn't get past the primary. As much as I hate hate hate hate this, the Democratic party needs to find a charismatic straight white man, preferably one who has served in the military, probably in his late 40s or 50s. Not someone boring (hence the "charismatic" bit), but someone who "fits the mold", has clear policy proposals on things that average voters actually care about, and doesn't present as radical or "different" in any way.
This unfortunately means someone who won't push social/racial justice issues too hard (alienates white/religious/older people), won't be too science-focused (alienates voters without college degrees) and who will mainly focus on the economy and health care (what people actually claim to care about when making voting decisions), and at least make the right kinds of noises about crime and immigration (even though their impact on those things is somewhat limited as president).
Maybe someone like Mark Kelly would fit the bill, I dunno.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. If Pete is the Democratic candidate, it's a freebie to the Republicans. I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate.
> gay man i think you're wrong and i certainly don't live in a bubble. but the reason i think you're wrong is not that america is progressive enough accept a gay man but because he's basically not gay; he's absolutely the least gay presenting man in the history of gay presenting men (exaggerating a little). he has no lisp, not an ounce of flamboyancy, nothing, zilch, nada. I'm aware he's fully out and there are photo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Simply ignoring the constitution and cancelling the vote? How about ignoring the Constitution and just running anyway? > There's no way he will be able to shift the Overton window that far in ~3 years. Yeah, even totalitarians these days hold elections for show. I absolutely expect that there will formally be an election in 2028.
> How about ignoring the Constitution and just running anyway? What does that even mean? He can certainly mount a campaign, and the RNC delegates could even all pick him at the convention, but elections are run by the states, and they are under no obligation to violate the constitution by allowing his name on the ballot or counting write-in votes for him. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the shittiest red states in…
The majority of states are GOP governed, and are unlikely to disqualify their parties nominee even if they are Constitutionally ineligible. As for other states, the federal courts already stopped them from removing Trump from the primary ballot in 2024 over state determination of constitutional ineligibility, why wouldn't an even-more-Trump-appointee-dominated federal judiciary do the same in 2028, leaving ineligibility determinations to the Congress when it judges the electoral vote?
The really interesting news here is that in Turkey you need a degree to run for president.
United States from the 1890s to the 1960s required voters to pass a literacy before they could vote. We should bring back this rule. Voters should have a minimum level of knowledge about the world, science and democracy in order to vote. This would have prevented the current disaster which threatens not just our democracy, but by denying climate change, the entire planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you 100% sure there are no obscure laws or something that can be used to postpone an election somehow? :( How about simply refusing to accept a loss, calling the election rigged and fake.. Or simply putting a puppet as the candidate. Believe Putin did this some years ago.
Start a war perhaps? Taking an example from the Netanyahu playbook.
Or just declare that one already exists because of a foreign invasion or attack. Which he has already done once in the past week (as a pretext for invoking the Alien Enemies Act), and has given pretty clear signals (via his "fentanyl is a WMD" order) that he intends to do again, more broadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even American and yet where I'm from it's common knowledge that literacy tests were used to systematically disenfranchise black people from voting.
Right, and that was apparently constitutional. If so we can bring back the law, but this time to disenfranchise dumb voters.
No matter what kind of voter you particularly would like to target, the people administering the poll tests will (ab)use them to disenfranchise whomever they please.
Even if you believe the people in power who administer your elections would do this the "right" way, if you give them power, then the next people who come along -- who you may not agree with -- will also have that power.