Tinidril @ Tinidril @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,873

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes... Chairs are dictators accountable to no one.

Thanks for telling me that you aren't a serious person. I see no reason to continue.

The process started almost immediately after the election.

Yet the decision just happened. What a coincidence that the decision was to do what the establishment has always done and protect old guard Democrats.

The country has been taken over by fascists because of the Democrats weakness. Approval ratings for Democrats are in the toilet. Yet the very idea that there should be standards for Democratic politicians is treated as heresy. It's literally insane.

Again, the process started at latest right after the election.

Again, you don't get to just redo an election - especially for something as ridiculously petty as the excuse they found. No rule was broken, only the suggestion that the spirit of a rule could have been better adhered to. The entire point of the rule was to seek gender parity and there were two male VPs and two female. To undo an election instead of adjust the process for future elections is ridiculous - especially when they knew everyone with a brain would notice that they put this issue ahead of rescuing the country from fascists. THIS IS HOW OLD GUARD DEMOCRATS ACT.

I've heard all this cope before when I argued that Clinton would be just another Reagan Republican,band when I argued that Obama wasn't going to be a new kind of Democrat. I've been in this fight a long time, and this is just the same old cope. You believe what you want, most people do, but your just more blue MAGA from where I'm sitting.

We can look at how he ran Minnesota's state party, turned a purple state blue and made it one of the most progressive states in the country.

All by himself? Did he fix the Minnesota party by protecting conservative Democrats there too? This reads like all the delusion about Musk establishment Democrats had in ages gone by. "Look at all the great things he's doing for the planet!"

while he isn't overtly progressive, what he cares about is winning elections.

That's a contradiction. It's also the definition of who "they" is.

after 50+ years of Lex Luther running the party, we really don't need anything more from the party.

Alternative definition of "they". "You got your marginal surface level improvements, now sit down and shut up or we'll blame you (again) when we lose."

Fuck them, you'll never see me defend them.

You are them, just nextgen.

They've said that before. Somehow they always seem to find a way to come to the rescue for an establishment friendly incumbent.

They are redoing a vice chair election because one of the vice chairs they picked decided to push for primary challenges to the old guard. And you think that's a sign that the old guard has fallen? That's some Republican level bullshitting right there.

You don't redo an election once the elected people take office - especially for something like the questionable reasons they offered. Trump's election had a stronger basis for being challenged than this, but the Democrats accepted that on this basis.

2nm is 20A on the agnstrom scale used by Intel, and Intel has an 18A process that was projected to hit production late in 2025. TSMC isn't projecting anything better until 16A in 2027.

I have no idea how Trump's trashing of the Chips Act factors in, but it does still seem to be a real race.

Oh, it's definitely karma. It's just ignorant to expect Americans to overthrow the government and not end up with something even worse than we have today. That's just not how the modern world works.

So? How many of these happened without the outside instigation and assistance I mentioned? Copying and pasting a list of every revolution is kinda missing the point. Also, how many of these ended up with as bad or worse dictatorships?

Oh, sure. That's why there are no other fascists in power anywhere in the whole world.

I'm betting that they continue to play puppet-master with Donald Trump Jr.

I support the criticisms, but history will just see this as the thousandth time this has happened across the globe, and not nearly the only place it's happening right now.

Generally speaking revolutions like you speak of are not a feature of the modern world. They only happen when a stronger and more wealthy outside force helps drive them. That's notably not something that can happen in the strongest and most wealthy country in the world.

Narrator: No, no they won't.

Of Congress approves then they are doing so within their constitutional powers. There would be no crime. It would just be another legal bribe.

The constitution clearly doesn't guarantee you an answer from the courts to redress every grievance. You might get a hearing to determine whether or not you have a basis to receive a trial, but that trial isn't guaranteed.

Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action. It is formally recognized as such in many countries. That has not lead to the trampling of constitutions.

It's not just Congress that can abuse their power. We have seen multiple judicial rulings in the last decade that are based on fraudulent constitutional interpretation.

It's a matter of interpretation as to whether any rules were actually broken. The DNC has four VPs, two are women and two are men. Given the current controversy and the current crisis of confidence in Democratic leadership, the damage this will do to both the party and public opinion of DEI policies should be weighed against whatever "damage" this procedural issue allegedly did.

The fact that this issue started moving months ago is irrelevant. The decision is being made now, and nobody with a brain is going to believe that this isn't being done, at least in part, to protect useless incumbents that don't belong in the Democratic party.

Especially when mining of rare earth metals is starting to play a big role in geopolitics.

OK, let's flip that argument. What are the limitations of judicial review? Can justices declare everything Congress passes to be unconstitutional? (You know there are wacky Republican "scholars" who would agree with them).

Of course not. Legislative power is wielded by Congress, not the courts. Many countries, for example the UK or the Netherlands, expressly forbid judicial review of legislation passed by parliament, exactly for this reason. Legislative power should belong to representatives elected by the people.

I don't agree that it is at all clear that "cases" includes challenges to the validity of the law itself. Adding and removing laws is supposed to be a legislative process, and therefore a political one.

Cool. I guess I was a little harsh and assuming there myself. That's my bad.

You should have continued to this part.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This is the basis for Congress to strip jurisdiction and therefore judicial review.

I don't know who you think "they" is, but the "they" to which I belong is currently out of power in all three branches. I don't change my opinions for convenience. You don't know me so please stfu about things you have no way of knowing.