The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
It turns out it is possible for groups to make mirror-image accusations of each other, yet one group is substantially correct and the other almost-wholly wrong.
So Ukraine has been handed over to Putin in exchange for a few hotels to be named later and the US has invaded Denmark and Canada?
I still find it silly when people talk about how we should have more meritocracy but do not want to address the fact that some people are born with 1000 times more resources than others.
That is not the true objection of those who do talk about that, considering they do not sing the praises of billionaire orphans and refugees, but rather want to take from them more than they want to take from a dissolute trust-fund kid.
This is true in a basic sense that "Democrats could just repeal anything we pass", but it's not true in this context where we're talking about making things more difficult to do by unilateral executive authority.
The Dems have shown they respect the courts in at least some cases, e.g. Biden trying to ban new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, the courts striking it down, and then Biden effectively going "aw shucks guess we can't do that then".
Biden not only did not go "aw shucks", he issued another ban as a lame duck, and the Democrats assert that only Congress can reverse that.
My first impression of this is that the press release was written before the study, with some blanks filled in. And I noticed some of the odd results others noticed in the crosstabs. Hopefully the name of the author Tatishe Nteta isn't itself worthy of a ban. The linked page has his capsule bio as
My research interests lie at the intersection of the politics of race and ethnicity, public opinion, and political behavior. More specifically, my work examines the impact of changing demographics and shifts in the sociopolitical incorporation of racial minorities on the contours of American race relations, campaigns, policy preferences, and participation.
The word "intersection" seems a bit forced there, honestly; it's like he's trying to write a bio that doesn't actually show his biases while dog-whistling them loud and clear, but dog-whistling doesn't work -- that's a train whistle.
His undergraduate was in African American Studies. His name, though, he comes by non-politically; his father was lefty activist Christopher Nteta a black South African immigrant to the US.
His past work includes papers claiming to demonstrate that "racial resentment" really does measure anti-black prejudice and not just conservative belief, and that Nikki Haley lost because Republicans are sexist.
I would not consider a study authored by him to be reliable. In theory, scientific methods work regardless of who uses them. In practice, there's a lot of ways to put one's thumb on the scale.
I'm asking MAGA the question "Now that you have power, what's your plan to deal with immigration long-term, especially once Democrats retake the Presidency sometime in the future"
There is no solution to that. If you wish to exercise power, you must retain power. Your dead writings have power only in as much your opponents are willing to respect them when they are in power, and the Democrats have made it clear that in general, they are not willing to respect such writings.
With regard to your first question, the sister-in-law has a Provisional Custody by Mandate document signed by the father, which allows her to exercise most of the parental rights of the father.
If indeed he has any.
Can the father or SIL not go pick the 2 year old up from Honduras at a later date if that's what the mother and father decide they want to do?
If the father were legally in the United States, sure. It seems likely he is not, so if he leaves the country he will find it difficult to come back.
Yes, but you have to do all that FIRST, otherwise it's just who/whom.
It's a tough road to hoe, but not entirely crazy. I expect he's properly going to lose, but fortunately there are of other laws that can be used to deport TdA members (including to El Salvador, if their home country won't take them), though they require more paperwork to be done.
I think if you want to see this sort of thing simmer down, you’ll need to appease the red tribe - not just give them empty promises that’ll be rolled back the moment they aren’t watching, but actually give something up.
The problem is as soon as they violate the empty promise, they'll say "Well, we didn't make the promise with wording that absolutely forbids that" and/or "Well, the promise was with those other guys over there, not us, we're totally separate". And they can maintain this forever, and half of Red will believe them too.
The Obstructing part is problematic because what the judge did doesn't fit into anything that's actually described under the obstruction statutes. chapter 73 of the US Criminal Code has 21 sections, and while §1505 doesn't specifically define obstruction, the sections that do make references to things like destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribery, and suborning perjury.
After the January 6 charges, there can't possibly be any limits on "obstructing an official proceeding".
There's been tariffs, since the Democrats don't want to interrupt their opponent when he's shooting himself in the face. Also deportations, though the Supreme Court has put the kibosh on those for now. But mostly nothing that won't just be #resist'ed until he's out of office.
The right is generally in favor of this whenever the left wants to do things.
But it does not get its way in this regard.
Whichever way it comes out, it's a point towards "Calvinball" in the "All this is the result of the right not understanding the orderly business of governing" vs "The business of governing is Calvinball."
But do you honestly believe the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government the unlimited ability to interfere with how states delegate municipalities the power to decide how they're going to charge people for using vehicles on their roads?
In this case, yes. The statutory authority for this program is Federal and is conditional on the approval of the Secretary of Transportation.
There would need to be an analysis by a disinterested observer. Unfortunately, there aren't any.
It is certainly strange that whichever elections the right wins, and whichever court battles they win.... those aren't the ones which result in any change.
Elasticity of demand is very low.
Public subsidy is a funny charge. Typically after all fuel taxes from every level of government are accounted for, it adds up to a quarter of the budget for road construction and maintenance in America.
This probably isn't true; it probably fails to count fuel taxes diverted elsewhere (such as mass transit). But note that even if it were, 100% of the operating cost of the rolling stock is covered by users of automobiles. The mass transit target is typically 50%. 100% of the capital cost of the rolling stock is covered by users of automobiles; for mass transit that number is 0%. And even if the amount for road construction collected from drivers is 25%, that number for mass transit is, again, 0%.
Usually the target for mass transit is a 3-seat ride. Collector, trunk, distributor. This is already bad, but in fact there will be many destinations for which you can't even get that, and they're even worse. Manhattan has some advantages for mass transit; overall density (meaning the walking leg can get you a lot of places) and the linear layout of the island. The linear layout means a one or two seat ride is practical for lot more users than in a typical mass transit system. That there are express tracks helps too, though those could have been built elsewhere; they just weren't.
That is obviously false as seen by the actual massive drop in traffic after the congestion pricing scheme went on.
Since they were declaring victory in the first week of the year (always lighter traffic than usual, and with a snowstorm, no less) based on comparing cherrypicked routes on those days to similar days during more normal commute periods, I know they will lie about this and claim a massive drop in traffic regardless of what actually happens.
It doesn't matter. Civil rights is like gun control -- the conservatives on the court (with 1 or 2 exceptions) believe one side is in accord with the Constitution, but they want what the other side wants. That is, they want "the blacks" to succeed without discrimination in their favor, but their second choice is the appearance of same, with "Asian and white Harvard" WAY behind. So they will do the "Supreme Court as a debating society" thing where they'll agree that yes, the Fourteenth Amendment means you can't discriminate against white people, but really, can't The Man give a brother a chance for crying out loud?
- Prev
- Next
You're getting lost in the details (which are mostly lies from both sides), when this is a case of simple conflict theory. Amazon thinks, correctly, that if they label the products with the tariff this will make people angry at Trump. Trump realizes this and opposes it.
More options
Context Copy link