PMC Vanguardist

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia

God there are so many of them, but IEEPA is a really good example and is the reason why Tariff Otaku is able to do so much damage

if I had known this goofy joke would go viral, I would have picked a different year, because some people seem to think this is just A Reagan Thing

it is not a Reagan thing, it's not even a Republican thing, it is a "many consecutive decades of Congresspersons have been criminally lazy" thing

there is no single WTWTCHA, just a very long series of acts of Congress that say "and the executive branch will figure out the details because we can't be bothered"

this goes back at least as far as . . . I dunno, Eisenhower? maybe even Truman?

I will absolutely never measure up to Tungsten Arm O'Doyle but this is very nice of you to say

if your boss makes you show up to work on time, can you even really say you're *living*, though

but no math and no graphs! these are the tools of our Stancilite oppressors

we will simply plan the economy without the bourgeois strictures of "numbers," how hard could it be

"There is no trans community and if there were I would not be in community with it" stays winning because that's correct, it is not winning rhetoric.

Relatedly I am now an official member of the school PTA where my daughter starts kindergarten next week. Community? Hopefully!

I haven't but now I shall!

this is @eleanor.lockhart.contact's music but as a cishetero dude I will say that "if you're not a desperately poor downtrodden Stalinist with 46 emotional dysregulation disorders left untreated by our for-profit healthcare system, you're not REALLY queer" doesn't strike me as winning rhetoric

First, statehood has *always* been a partisan weapon. What do you think the Missouri Compromise was?

And second, yes, you should support DC statehood even if you think I'm arguing in bad faith, because there are also good-faith arguments for it and you haven't even bothered to address those.

I'm half-joking, but only half

it is, and that's why it's good

I'd totally forgotten about this! So yeah—complete, crushing, absolute victory.

it's cool that rather than make an argument that the thing is bad, you've decided to oppose the thing because some guy on the internet was smarmy about it

that's a very mature and reasonable approach to politics, definitely

The Supreme Court said there's a *constitutional* right to same-sex marriage! I guess you could belt-and-suspenders that by also passing a federal statute (I think we should have done this with abortion after Roe), but that's what total, absolute victory looks like in a common-law democracy!

I don't even know what she thinks victory would look like here. The abolition of marriage generally, or what?

Hell, the Dakota Territory became two states (and New Mexico's admission as a state was delayed by nearly 25 years) *explicitly* for purely partisan reasons. This isn't even a new idea!

The borders of *every* state are fundamentally arbitrary. Rhode Island and Massachusetts are different states (and Rhode Islanders are WAY overrepresented in the Senate) because Roger Williams pissed off the religious authorities of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. It's all Calvinball!

We're in an existential fight against fascism and I make no apologies for considering, if only half-seriously, all available options for winning that fight.

It does not change the fact that giving the residents of DC self-determination and voting representation in Congress is the right thing to do.

That was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, but in any case I would still say DC should be more than zero states as a matter of principle.

How *many* more than zero? That is absolutely a partisan question.

Yes.

Because the residents of DC should not be less able to advocate for themselves when they need help from the federal government than any other group of Americans.

That. I was wondering that.

I didn't have a specific group in mind. The assumption that I did was all you, friend.

I wasn't calling you a racist, and I don't indulge Gish gallops.

yes, I suppose I was kind of glossing over the fact that a Republican President used his executive authority to release funds to a blood-red state before Congress had a chance to act

surely Donald Trump would act with similar beneficence if DC were to be hit by a natural disaster

it kinda sounds like you're now suggesting I want to do a good thing for a bad reason, the exact inverse of what you said like ten minutes ago

The law does not treat Puerto Rico differently in this regard. Puerto Rico gets treated differently because *they are not represented in Congress*.

And the same is true for DC.

Yes, and all of this is exactly how it works for Puerto Rico, too.

The President can declare federal emergencies and release readily available FEMA funds to Puerto Rico, or not. Congress can pass additional aid packages for Puerto Rico, or not.

giving 700,000 people who live in the United States voting representation in Congress isn't a bad thing, though

literally the only difference between DC and Puerto Rico in this regard is that DC doesn't lie in a hurricane zone

I for one do not think that is a good reason to treat them differently!