Washington Post columnists said it would probably just capture the “Never Trumper” moderate Republican voters who currently begrudgingly vote Democratic because they understand that the Republican Party is nominating only yes-men and fascists.
Important distinction: it was cited 29 times [by non-parties to the case who filed amicus briefs carrying no legal weight].
It was not cited 29 times in the actual ruling.
This is a fantastic idea. The brilliance of the 47th president strikes again. Give them work permits, ensure they are paid a fair wage and the labour standards are adhered to, and it will guarantee that they become hardworking honest taxpayers who contribute to the American economy.
Wait, that is the plan… right?
Right…?
The party of domestic terrorism strikes again
What happened in San Diego and Minneapolis?
What are some examples of non-lip-service changes to national policy that the Democratic Party could be making right now?
Like the Republicans wouldn’t just get rid of the filibuster the first time it’s used against a major Republican policy objective
What policy are the national Democrats intended to be doing with their swanky majorities of -8 in the House of Representatives and -5 in the Senate?
This is part of what the opposition is supposed to do. They criticise, make fun of, offer legislative resistance to, and draw attention to the bad policies of the government.
Saying that firing Musk made the Government more efficient is like doubling the price of a TV then marking it “40% off” for Black Friday
> takes over the government
> disbands USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
> refuses to elaborate
> fucks back off to running his Nazi car company
Patent obvious things still need to be said because:
Maybe instead of the Department of Government Efficiency it should be called the Department of Government Slowness, Hostility, Inefficiency, & Troublemaking. Or DOGSHIT for short.
Why am I not surprised?
“Classmates warn Heimrich Himmler he risks enabling descent ‘into fascism’”
AD 30 was the beginning of the papacy of Peter the Apostle, which according to the Catholic Church, was its first pope. Catholic teachings state that Peter’s successors form an unbroken line of Church leaders from AD 30 to the present day, though historic evidence is somewhat incomplete. This is the canonical start date of the Catholic Church as an organisation. “Christianity”, broadly speaking, is just a label affixed to anyone who identifies themselves as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church names Jesus Christ as its founder. If you accept this claim, then you could definitely say that it was a political organisation as well as a religious one from the beginning, as Jesus was notoriously put to death by the Roman state for political reasons. The Jewish Sanhedrin which had condemned Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah had no legal authority in Roman Judea; legally speaking, Jesus was put to death on the orders of Pontius Pilate (prefect of Judea) for sedition and for being “King of the Jews”. The legal veracity of this charge is questionable, of course, and Jesus famously preached for his followers to “render unto [the Emperor] the things that are [the Emperor’s]”, i.e. to respect the state and the laws, but the Roman Empire wasn’t known for being an egalitarian state with strong rule of law.
In my experience, Catholics tend to be pretty moderate, since the Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and all dogma originates from the Vatican. The size of the Church, it seems, has a moderating effect on its dogma since they have to appeal to such a large group of followers, and the views of its members tend to average out with a bias towards conservatism (because the Church is so unbelievably old that the inertia of 15th or 10th century doctrine still holds sway).
Protestants, meanwhile, span the whole political spectrum since the label is pretty broad in general. There are plenty of Protestant churches in my area that espouse very liberal and accepting social views, and probably at least a dozen will even marry same-sex couples, something notoriously disapproved of by the Catholic Church and many other denominations. But there are also many, much louder, Protestant churches that are basically full MAGA.
The Catholic Church has been a political institution for almost its entire existence. It is probably the *oldest * political institution in Europe, having existed since AD 30 according to its own history (though as you get further back in time, history starts turning into legend and mythology; it’s really not clear where that line is).
During the Middle Ages, you could very well be burnt at the stake for heresy or be sent to die in the Crusades, upon the orders of the pope. And for over a millennium, the Church directly ruled over a pretty sizeable piece of territory in central Italy.
I believe I saw someone say on Tumblr that if you enjoy having rights then you should advocate the strongest for criminals enjoying rights as well, because otherwise, the Government can always just take your rights away by labelling you a criminal.
Or, as has been trendy lately, a Salvadoran gang member.
Especially not their opinion column but I’m just posting here because it’s interesting to see what the neoliberals think about it and it’s a good discussion point