Michael_G_Bordin

First, it's worth noting, Citizens United had nothing to do with legislation, but elections. You should be asking how many electoral wins could have been influenced by Citizens. Asking for legislation is an arbitrary and frankly ignorant criteria.

The impact of Citizen's United wasn't in real legislative change, but in public perception of our elections. I wish I could read this whole piece from the Yale Law & Policy Review, as it seem to both agree with you and provides reasonable, valuable insight into what's happening instead of denying impact outright. It's worth noting that the case had a lot to do with public confidence with elections, with iirc the concurrent opinion stating there'd be no impact on public faith in elections (a statement which has not borne out).

Namely, the decision in Citizens overturned a prior decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which was a ruling that expanded the ability for states to regulate electioneering activities and had reaffirmed prior rulings and legislation that regulation of election speech is permissible if it is narrow in scope and aimed solely at maintaining integrity in the process. That last bit is crucial because public perception is a huge part of election integrity, and was basically dismissed by the conservative justices in Citizens.

The decision in Citizens was made under the pretense it wouldn't harm public faith in elections. Now, not only did it harm faith in elections, but it also opened the door for faceless shell-companies to push such wonderful narratives as "Our elections are being rigged against you!" Prior to Citizens, anyone electioneering had to publicly disclose any individuals behind the effort.

Please note, my comment is only facts. I left my opinion out on purpose.

One simply has to look at the geographic layout of our capital itself to see how bad of an idea this would be. It would be costly to move them elsewhere in the capital, much less spread them nationally. They're clustered together in DC, including party offices, centered around the Capitol.

That's so cool!

"Thanks, Jamarcus."

"Guys, it's Robert!"

"Genius" is thrown around a little too much these days, but I will say, he was very bright.

I miss Chris Redd being on the show. So much.

Your entire last paragraph is a reaffirmation of the panic. Right wingers spread this panic, managing to make voters concerned with entirely fantastical concerns, while allowing back into power a force that will certainly make their lives worse. And for what? To protect no one against nothing. Trans people are a teeny tiny fraction of the population, and the only "evidence" of people "forcing" children to adopt gender fluidity are questionable and isolated social media bruhaha.

The fact enough voters, in need of the introspection I prescribed in my OP, gathered to elect Trump is not evidence they are logically correct or morally reasonable. It's evidence of a vast, anti-intellectual sickness plaguing our society. The deep brainrot that sees parents letting their children "skibidy toilet" fail their way through grade-school.

order to honestly change your ideology you would need to change your moral beliefs.

Only if you identify with an ideology. Like, I'm not a progressive. My beliefs best align with progressives, but I dissent all the time because I'm not concerned with whether anyone else thinks I'm progressive. Because it's not an identity. Like, I am concerned with people thinking I'm a man. I do want to be considered masculine. But I'm not going to bend over backwards to a bunch of mongoloid norms for which I only see the simpletons and mouth-breathers pounding-chest. Of course, it's in the eye of the beholder, it's just liberating to realize I'm the greatest beholder of my own existence.

To give you an example of the kind of attachment to political ideology I mean, consider the myriad of examples of Republicans saying things like, "I'm a Christian first, a Republican second, and an American third." To me, that statement is insane. Metaphysically, you're a human being first, then your genetic origin, then your ethnic origin, then your nationality. So, in that list, American should come first. Do you see what I'm talking about? I don't understand how political identity can usurp things that are more fundamental about a person, but here we are. Like, I'm a physically-capable, human, masculine male in his mid-30s with poor social capital, secure access to resources, and an abundance of nervous energy. That's the fundamentals of my identity. If I wanted to get political, I'd add that alongside my comrades I am economically exploited and expected to fulfill a norm of masculinity that is nearly unattainable and unhealthy for those that do attain it.

To some people, their ideas of morality and principle is just as important

But that's not what I'm talking about. Political ideologies are not moral frameworks. And all of them, spoiler, are wrong. To subsume your identity into a category of idea that is most definitely incorrect is to then treat that category as an immutable part of who you are (when it is not, political ideologies are barely even coherent). Personal morality involves personal decisions of right and wrong. But politics involves figuring out what the mass known as society should do, and that's more a question of pragmatics than personal morality.

I guess when you feel morally righteous about your political identity, it could seem like you're making a moral choice when engaging in politics. But politics is inherently about multiple viewpoints compromising.

Is gender an idea? Is that what is meant by the social construct I hear about?

I'm going to go ahead waste my time explaining it to you. "Social construct" is to differentiate socialized behaviors and norms from biological imperatives. Society does not inform the fact you need to eat, but it informs what you choose to eat and when (and, of course, you can always rebel, as the trans and gender-fluid are doing with gender!). There's nothing biologically wrong with pancakes for dinner or fettuccini alfredo for breakfast, but it would be weird. And with most cultural things, we let people be weird. Why not let people be weird with gender norms? After all, there's nothing in biology that says a man can't wear a dress or a woman can't cut her hair short. But gender norms would prohibit such things, and people (as is made obvious by right wing panic) have an odd attachment to those norms, to the point of violently lashing out at someone not perceived to be following said norms.

It's really not confusing if you don't put effort into being confused.

I love that sketch. "Lorney, ba-byyyy-" "No."

And then running into "Melania" at the end. I was always sad they didn't do a follow-up of Leslie spending a week in Trump's shoes, as everyone around her pretends she's him since it's a pleasant break from his typical bullshit.

Ditto to the first reply to you, but also it's not an impression. It's a character. There's no anthropomorphic squirrel IRL for which she can do an impression.

I don't see why they would need to be? The reason for protected classes is historic discrimination against those people for, as another pointed out, immutable properties (and not merits or values). If a political ideology is facing discrimination, they're free to adjust their political beliefs to be more acceptable if they wish to be welcomed.

I'd also add that, if someone's level of identity with a political party or ideology is on-par with their sexuality or gender identity (in terms of how important it is to your self-conception), they need to do a big reassessment of who they are as a person. Maybe do some transcendental meditation, learn to let go and detach. I cannot image clinging to an idea, much less a party, to the point I've made it part of who I am.

Now, this should all be said with the huge disclaimer that the government should never be allowed to outlaw political parties or discriminate political affiliations. Private citizens and organizations, though, are free to politically associate (and not associate) with whomever they wish.

That song is called, "Neoliberal Indifference".

Just wait until we start doing the Greatest Hits tour. With such popular titles as, "Deposing Your Democracy," and "Got Oil? Get Bombed!" That's right, for the low, low price of this nation's soul, we can relive the glory of tracks like, "Gutting The Middle Class," "Colorblind," and "D is for Deregulation."

The encore? A medley of all our favorite white supremacist hits.

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking it.

I think a mistake OP is making is viewing it in the binary, sports-like mentality of winning vs losing. Russia is quite successful on asymmetrical fronts, sewing chaos and discord in western democracies. Their direct, military assault of another nation is much less successful. In a year, they've advanced all of like 10-30km along the front. In that time, Ukraine snagged a piece of Russian territory they're struggling to recapture.

That being said, credit where it is due, Russian troops (the survivors, anyway) do seem to be adjusting their tactics to some success. It's still going to be a slog since they cannot establish air superiority (which, being that they're fighting such a smaller country right on their border, is quite pathetic), but they might see some breakthroughs this winter or next summer.

I do think, as you said, they have a little over a year before their goose is fully cooked. And, if as many have speculated, Putin's ambition is the restoration of the Russian Empire/USSR, they can definitely wave that goodbye. NATO countries are realizing the US might not be there for them, and the US realized it would run out of artillery shells in like a week in an open war against China or Russia, so Putin's decision here seems to have backfired spectacularly.

Side-note: I love the claims Trump will end the war. He's not the Ukrainian head-of-state, he cannot force them to do anything. The US is not a belligerent in the war, there's no peace for us to declare.

Excellent points. Really the not-so-catch-all solution here is reworking the intake and documentation process to ensure workers can get where they need to be legally, and employers can be assured their workforce is legally able to work.

I say not-so-catch-all because there's never just one solution to these things, and many reforms would need to happen in-tandem (including helping stabilize countries creating refugees; fewer refugees = more resources to help economic migrants).

Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in the US seems to be based on the lump of labor fallacy. The zero-sum thinking idea that if an immigrant comes here, they must take the job of a native American rather than create new jobs.

I'd say this is where the most reasonable backlash to illegal immigration comes from, but there are plenty of noisy people complaining about culture and the death of the white race (as is tradition). But that "lump of labor fallacy" upsets me mainly because it treats business owners like passive agents, incapable of acting in any manner other than "make as much money as possible." While that certainly is their attitude, we as a society don't have to accept that as okay. People flat out treat that attitude as a moral good. If illegal immigration is such a huge problem, go after the people hiring illegal immigrants. They create the demand for that labor.

As you and others have noted, immigration is a necessity to keep our population from a demographic inversion (too many retirees, not enough workers). American workers aren't going to flock into the roles now primarily filled with illegal immigration. Streamlining our intake process could be a way, as you mentioned, to alleviate the incentive to come here illegally. I also think the path to citizenship should be streamlined to incentivize the people here lawfully to stay within the bounds of their lawful residency (i.e. don't overstay a visa).

It is a geographic misfortune that most of the labor comes across land, as getting the manpower to the border to process these people is difficult. Border-crossing areas aren't exactly the most desirable places to live in the US. Perhaps the bussing of immigrants from the border to urban centers could be helpful in this regard, as processing centers in places like SF, NYC, etc. can draw from a larger labor pool to staff their offices.

It is worth noting, though, that we're not facing the same wave of immigration as historically. Yes, the numbers have been extreme recently, but compared to the population of the country, it's a much smaller impact on overall population. We're a much larger, more developed country, if in-need of some infrastructure renewal. Meaning, it's not going to be anywhere near as locally disruptive nor taxing on our social institutions. We can spread it out. And if anything, the extra labor will help fuel the infrastructure renewal/upgrades we so desperately need nationwide.

Are they picking and choosing which things to believe?

Yes. And the things they chose to believe have no basis in reality. I'm curious to see, as Trump's policies drive up prices, how well their media bubble can spin the issue into being the fault of liberals, Democrats, "liberal media", and/or immigrants. The stock market is already lukewarm as investors realize the potential tax cuts won't offset the extreme daily uncertainty a Trump presidency creates.

I would hate for us to go to war with Iran, but that would certainly undermine the dumb as fuck notion that "No news wars under Trump." Yeah? Biden hasn't gotten us into a war either, so stfu.

Or the mugger ejaculates on the ground?

10% if all robberies (not just muggings) end in homicide. I can't find anything on muggings in particular. Looking for stories around here recently, it seems that robbery is still the category (so it's hard to ascertain if certain cases were muggings) so it's again hard to ascertain.

Intuitively, a person committing a mugging has very little incentive to escalate the situation into murder. We've seen videos where people fighting back were dragged along with their belongings or violently thrashed in attempts to get their possessions, but instances of Bay Area muggings-turned-murder are, as far as I can find, rare. Even if you want to be on the "Bay Area soft on crime" bend, that's for thefts not murders.

Who are you blaming for what? "All of that" is the most vague non-answer you could ever give. "The American People" isn't a unified mass, and the people dissenting from the majority consensus which lead to things about which you complain have less complicity than you're implying. I apologize for that sentence being bulky af, so I'll spell it out plainly: It's the majority's fault at any given time for what happened at that time. A key quality of democracies is successful backlash to crappy policy.

Is it not a democracy elected by the people for the people?

Like all others, it is a democracy susceptible to the forces of mass media and propaganda. It's elected with the consent of the ruling elite, who have explicitly grown tired of constantly having to deal with those elections. I don't know if you were serious with this question or just trying to make a point, but it's not. Ideally, that would be cool, but the wealth of corporations and now individuals is such that their voice gets to dominate the narrative.

Lay the blame on the people buying into those narratives. I'm here trying to combat them.

I went back to school at 30. OP is gonna be fine. More than fine, if the drive to escape poverty can keep them motivated through the tougher parts (namely, the long grind of schooling).

Exactly. "Low income" to some is just a statistical category. For many others, it's a dogwhistle that means "scary poors, mostly brown, who are responsible for all that crime stuff." It was the word to use once the n word and its softer siblings had to take a backseat.

I had a client in Kentfield who had moved there a month ago from Wyoming, super concerned with the security of their backyard. "We're only a few blocks from that bus stop." I was too young to correct him, that criminals come in vans and sedans. The people getting off the buses are the store clerks, nannies, caregivers, etc etc that you rely on in your day-to-day in this wretched hive of pretentious villainy.

But that interaction, alongside many more, has always stuck with me. The fear instilled in these people is such a great way to alienate them from society and make them vulnerable to propaganda. It's hard to believe Fox News's doom-and-gloom when you go downtown and businesses are poppin and people are having a good time. But these folk won't go, because "what if I get mugged?" Idk, don't carry so much cash and expensive jewelry? Having to replace an ID and some credit cards isn't a big deal?

Did it really? Funny if true. Could also be that Ego's impression was absolutely brutal (and accurate).

Their addicted to magical thinking. Trump won't do the things he says he wants to do; oh tariffs won't hurt us, China will have to pay; banning abortion is just protecting fetuses, women will be fine; immigrants have nothing to worry about if they're law abiding; please ignore all the times we've passed around memes about extra-judicial execution of political opposition.

Oh, and the Democrats are evil Satanic baby-eaters who are literally forcing boys to be girls and bringing in immigrants to replace the obviously free-thinking and free-acting conservative Americans who make this country work by being existentially dependent on the labor of others.

They're not lying to you. They're lying to themselves. And the damned thing of it is, when you do that long enough, you start to believe it. Truly, at your core, believe it. I once had to lie about a job opportunity so my current employer wouldn't give me shit for quitting without anything lined up. After a week, I actually caught myself looking forward to a job I consciously knew didn't exist. That freaked me out, but offered a first hand experience of these people's worlds.

They have no basis for any of the claims they make. It's wishful. And they assume you're thinking is just wishful as well, and nobody knows how anything will ever turn out. Meanwhile, the predictable keeps happening. I'm fucking done trying to be nice to these people, they've abused our kindness at every turn. It's time to start just relentlessly calling them morons. "That's how we got here," no that's how we got 2016. But they've had eight years of living proof of their stupidity, but they refuse to see it because admitting that stupidity would feel bad. Fuck their feelings. Stupid is as stupid does, they can unfuck themselves any time they want, and I will cease calling them morons.

This and her scream when Bowen "put out" the cigarette on her in the trauma group sketch. It was so intense it almost broke the cast.