The real play here is to keep it off TV as someone says below and to expand the jury pool beyond Fulton County. One only has to look at an electoral map to know why.
Don’t know if the article picked this up, but in Georgia a pardon board, not the governor, makes the pardon determination and, I am told, requires that a portion of the criminal sentence be served before a pardon is considered. This is a tough case to prosecute, and these are uncharted waters, but it raises the specter of a candidate running for president from behind bars.
Presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes, unless I am mistaken. In Georgia, there is a board with pardon power and you have to serve part of your sentence before you are even eligible. This one is a real danger for Trump.
This is a great (but depressing) read. Exhibit #5,000 as to why we do not have a functioning competitive market for health care (services) in the U.S. Arguing that government should step aside and let the market allocate care is like arguing we should step aside and let a llama pilot the space shuttle.
The “greedy scientists just want more money for studies” angle makes me an little uncomfortable since it is the same one used by the side arguing we shouldn’t be spending any money on green energy.
The fact that the fossil fuels industry supports this research is a way better argument, IMHO. Also, we do have these great carbon sequestration machines already. They are called trees.
Yep. I also think the ham-fisted way they are rolling this out is a projection of how they think the ‘libruls’ are brainwashing the kids.
Rather than educated people coming to educated conclusions on their own across vast segments of society, it is almost as if they think there is this secret committee of hooded Illuminati that generates Disney princess woke coloring books to turn little Billy-Bob away from Jesus, and the rest of the country just marches unthinkingly in lockstep with those orders. So of course, that is the playbook they want to follow.
I somehow feel this will backfire spectacularly. Younger kids can be dumb like the rest of us, but there is one thing they are exceptionally smart about: spotting and mocking lame-ass adults.
There is already little tolerance among (a lot of) younger folk for climate denialism and general right wing jackassery. Adding a cut-rate Donald Duck screeching about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or how windmills are dangerous is just gonna’ cement the lameness for them. Now, if we could just do something about the grown-up idiots on Facebook, we’d be cooking.
I am aware of the rhetorical device you are talking about, but I did not read that into the replies to you. Maybe I am just dense. What I do pick up from all corners is a lot of motive attribution without sufficient evidence, which continues with the post above. I think disengagement is a wise move.
We can all agree that there is a lot of daylight between punching literal Nazis and what to do about Uncle Bob who won’t shut up about border security, and leave it at that.
Speaking of civility, I think you are both coming from a well meaning place and are making interesting points, but you are starting to make different points. It is even likely you are visualizing two totally different interactions when you are typing out your replies.
I could be wrong about that, but what is clear is that there is a lot of “you this” and “you that” in the discussion. As this is the nice Lemmy instance, please depersonalize the interaction or consider disengaging.
I agree again, and just posted up an article about that very thing.
I do think health care can be this way too, though. It just has to be explained in a manner that is personal to Joe and Jill public. Stop talking about taking away private insurance, cause that will just scare them, and start talking about how they are already one serious illness and a faceless algorithm away from bankruptcy, which is scary, but in an accurate way.
I basically agree. As mentioned below, there are several issues, health care among them, that are winners at the ballot box if dems get the messaging right and are willing to go to the mat over principle.
I’m an honest to goodness old-school trade unionist / New Deal type, and don’t really identify with much of the Dem establishment (and parts of the counter-establishment) these days, but I definitely see some of the points my progressive friends are making. Dems, even if they lose, don’t seem to really fight on the way down. When FDR was being blocked he threatened to pack the SCOTUS until he got his way. Fuck yeah. We need more of that energy.
I do agree with my mainstream Dem friends that we have to vote strategically to keep the fascists out. That said, and even though I don’t agree with some of the more unrealistic late night dorm room bong-ripping idealism, I also don’t agree with the mainstream expectation that progressives need to roll over before the election even gets underway just because there is an anointed mainstream Dem candidate on the ballot. Fighting like hell through the primaries is the way you hold the Dem establishment accountable and keep the Overton window from drifting too far right. Because you know what? Activists on the far right are fightIng like hell the other direction, and they have been winning.
So shine on, you crazy progressive and radical diamonds. Hold the establishment accountable and push policy to the left. Want real socialism? Agitate for it. But if you lose in the primaries, have the grace to put on a disguise and show up on election day to make sure the vulnerable don’t get fucked any worse than than they already are.