TrackerNeil

Shouldn't you have blocked us all by now?

Yes, this episode was indeed stupid, but at least it's not "Tuvix."

I've never said how I felt on that issue, and it doesn't really relate to the point I was making. I am glad we can otherwise agree.

What I think is that any Democrat who holds an unpopular position had better be ready to explain and defend it. But I've already said that and you don't seem to agree. So there it is.

Those same generals are calling a man who has been impeached twice and felony-convicted 34 times the commander in chief. So, yes, I can imagine.

We started this convo about Harris' unwillingness to defend an unpopular position, that's what it has to do with it. Those who buck public opinion had better be willing and able to explain why; otherwise, they lose. I don't know about you, but I don't want Democrats losing.

It already has changed, for minors, in the form of Skrmetti. Reversing that means either changing SCOTUS or persuading 27 state legislatures to repeal their bans, and that's going to involve democracy...or "polling." No way around it.

Legislation is enacted by officials who tend to do what they think their constituents want. Case law is established by judges appointed via the democratic process, and of course it changes. Dobbs, anyone?

Rights aren't divinely conceived. We decide what they are.

We kinda do base rights on polling. Black Americans were not protected from employment discrimination until Congress *said* they were. Supreme Court rulings are made by justices who are appointed (loosely) via the democratic process. That's the way it works.

Positions you won't defend or even explain will be defined by others, oftentimes bad actors.

No matter what those amendments say, Harris' position was pretty out of step with what most Americans were telling pollsters. That may not be radical to you, but it was radical to others.

What I think is that, if a politician is going to take a unpopular opinion, she'd better be prepared to handle the questions that will naturally arise. I don't think Harris was.

Yes, not the same as "trans bathrooms." However, the position Harris actually took (on the ACLU form) is one that's not very popular with Americans, and one she later slid away from. ("I will follow the law.") In any case, a good candidate deals well with skepticism, and she didn't.

Harris did not endorse "trans bathrooms" but she did take a position on trans issues that most people were going to find pretty out-there. Sure, right-wing media can lie, but in terms of Harris they didn't have to lie a whole lot.

I swear, being on social media means never having to admit you overreacted.

Charlie Kirk himself thought that some gun deaths were a worthy price for the Second Amendment. His own death will fairly quickly be forgotten as Americans, as always, move on from this latest shooting. So, in a way, both right and left are getting what they want.

Really, that's all legitimacy is: the idea that certain standards and criteria are valuable and worth heeding. Trump and the GOP have stripped all government activity of legitimacy and made it into a brute exercise of power. That's dangerous not just for the people targeted, but for the republic.

Watching the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11, I remember thinking, "It was mostly air." Somehow it had never occurred to me that the inside of a building — even an enormous one — was mostly air. Having the same feeling now as I watch the Constitution collapse: Turns out... it was just air.

I know this dragon is depicted as on the attack, but instead it looks surprised at unexpected brunch guests and embarrassed that it didn't set out a few extra chairs.

I wish media had brought this level of skepticism to "But her emails!" and the claims that Joe Biden was experiencing significant cognitive decline.

To me, it's not about Nixon getting his comeuppance; it's the veneration of the politics of legitimacy, as opposed to the politics of power. The pardon putatively spared the nation but it really just spared the GOP, who then went on to trash the nation via the politics of power.

At least they're doing a job that needs doing.

I see your point, but I think the filibuster's days are numbered no matter what Dems do. It's already been repeatedly narrowed, and one of these days one party or the other will value a policy enough to finally wipe it out entirely.

I brought my family to see Congress certify the vote for the 2020 presidential election.

The first thing I saw was a bunch of MAGA thugs assaulting the Capitol, one of whom was wearing a stupid buffalo hat.

So forgive me if I doubt that the guy who pardoned them is going to bring crime down.

I brought my family to see Congress certify the vote for the 2020 presidential election.

The first thing I saw was a bunch of MAGA thugs assaulting the Capitol, one of whom was wearing a stupid buffalo hat.

So forgive me if I doubt that the guy who pardoned them is going to bring crime down.

Well, they'll try. First they've got to find a plaintiff who actually has standing, no mean feat. Then they've got to get this all the way through the federal courts, then persuade 5 justices that settled jurisprudence that very few Americans dislike should be overturned because Kim Davis is upset.

To change the rules, we need to control government. To control the government, we need to win elections. I don't know what else we're supposed to do.

I swear that far lefties hate liberals way, way more than they hate conservatives.

After she has given testimony to exonerate him, Trump need not worry about anything else she might say. If she admits she lied under oath to get a pardon, she's guilty of perjury and thanks to SCOTUS, he is guilty of nothing. He can't lose.

If I were Maxwell, I'd insist on the pardon *first*, then the testimony. Trump is a notorious liar and breaker of deals, and is quite capable of persuading Maxwell to clear his name and then leaving her to rot in a cell.

What does Skrmetti have to do with gay people? HB1 affects trans people, who are not the same.