10·
8 months agoThe Labor Party boycotted the vote and its members were not in attendance. The Arab parties voted against the measure.
Some more important context for people.
- 5 Posts
- 373 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 20th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
3·8 months agoYes, that’s true. The poll averages themselves haven’t moved much either though. And the reliance on the fundamentals forecast has me nervous, but they definitely do it for a reason. When they developed the models and looked at poll history the pattern they found was the fundamentals had a big influence on what the polls would look like closer to the election and the eventual result. Polls closer to the election are more predictive than the fundamentals. Polls farther away from the election less so. There’s at least some reason to think things have changed enough maybe the fundamentals aren’t as fundamental for this race, but I guess we won’t know until afterward.
Exactly, I think because races have been so close lately, and the probabilities are ending up close to 50% often, people sometimes unintentionally conflate them with poll numbers. 53% to 46% would be a massive poll lead. For probabilities though in this situation it’s the same as saying they have even odds of winning. Look at those massive 95% confidence intervals, the race is in a statistical dead heat. It’s kind of remarkable how steady it has been despite all the wild events that have happened.
He knows that Biden and democratic policies have been good to unions, heck the teamsters pension fund was even bailed out by them in 2022, preventing large pension cuts to 350,000 union workers.
Going to be a real leopard ate my face moment if Trump wins and fills the national labor board with anti union officials again.
It’s especially inexplicable because in straw polls Biden has a clear lead in support among teamster members.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/teamsters-trump-biden.html
“But you know,” Mr. Palmer added, “you can pick up a snake and play with it, but if you play with it enough, it’s going to bite you eventually.”
Is it okay if I still vote for both of those things at once? Because she’s been shockingly incompetent in cases that have nothing to do with Trump too.
It’s obvious she’s a Trump’s stooge though. First supreme court nomination by Trump if he wins for sure. No surer way to fail to the top of a fascist kelptocratic system then by doing favors for the boss.
201·8 months agoOkay I’m not saying she’s the best choice, wouldn’t be my preferred choice, but also this is a poll run by the Daily Mail. I can’t even find any pollster reputation ratings for them. I also can’t find any of their methodologies published online, which is also sketchy. And knowing what we all do about the Daily Mail anyways, this should all be taken with a massive truckload of salt.
Edit: Ah found it, it was run by J.L partners, ranked 145 on five thirty eight pollster rankings for reliability (1.6/3 stars for reliability with a transparency score of 4.2/10). And again, without the methodology being published who knows. The pollster themself, James Johnson, is also a former senior advisor to Theresa May and the UK conservative party.
10·9 months agoAlso in the northern district of Texas. I smell some judicial venue shopping. Northern district of Texas is basically now the Mordor of the legal world.
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
*and even the number of democrats minus 50 don’t want to. So even one (plus Harris helping) in the first two years of the term or even two (if Harris helps again) in the second two years of the past term. It’s not like all democrats are unified about the filibuster, most voted to bypass it. You need either more than 60 dems total, or more than 50 dems that support bypassing the filibuster.
Or you know, even a single republican that doesn’t want to be a facist helping to transition the country to authoritarian rule. But that seems less likely unfortunately.
https://www.newsweek.com/gretchen-whither-chances-beating-trump-poll-1919211
That’s my concern too. Harris was closest at about the same percent as Biden. Though it did increase the amount of people who would say they’re not sure when compared to the Biden Trump race. It’s possible a new candidate might have some wiggle room to convince more swing voters. So I think there’s an argument to be made that some of the potential replacements have a higher ceiling than Biden does that they might get to even if they start at a lower polling basis. I would feel a lot better about a switch if someone was actually polling better than Biden already though.
These ones were earlier from February 2024, and though it was only in a single poll, the only person who recorded a higher percent than Biden in a poll was fucking Joe Manchin, ugh.
Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the nation at the state government level. Even though democrats got more votes, Republicans ended up with a super majority in one house and large majority in another. This is why you see the statewide elections like governor and attorney general, and the state legislature makeup, differing so much. They can’t gerrymander a state wide vote.
Okay, I was linking polling about actual policies that were passed and implemented though, and those were popular with people.
That’s what this articles is about, but policies passed during the Biden admin have also been popular, though according to these sources some not well advertised enough.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-poll-support/index.html
https://apnews.com/article/poll-ukraine-aid-congress-b772c9736b92c0fbba477938b047da2f
I tried but it’s harder to find polling on very specific executive department actions and regulations though, like the SAVE student loan repayment plan changes for example. So harder to say on those.
Military tribunals? Sounds like some of his article 2 powers with absolute immunity now, their use cannot be questioned. Go to town Trump, say the conservatives on the supreme court.
The majority are the ones who said that any use of constitutional presidential powers creates absolute immunity. All the dissenters are doing is pointing out the obvious implications and saying why the majority is wrong to create that immunity more eloquently than I can. You are the one who is confused. Or more likely, just arguing in bad faith. But just in case,
It’s on the very first page of the majority ruling, here you go:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
Seperately from the absolute immunity, any powers not delegated in the constitution (official acts they call it), have presumptive immunity. Uses of specifically delegated constitutional powers, like the military, have absolute immunity. If its an ability delegated to him in the constitution, the majority ruling says that cannot be questioned. They say neither by themselves or congressional laws. Only use of powers not delegated in the constitution can the court even begin to question if it was an “official act.”
The majority says something along the lines of “oh this is just a little immunity we didn’t give turmp everything he asked for.” I have no idea why they can write that with a straight face. Besides the fact that giving any criminal immunity to the president is totally antithetical to the founding principles of our country, they in fact have given him everything he asked for. Trump himself was arguing if he was impeached for something then he should be able to be criminally liable still. But now thanks to the supreme court conservative justices, for the vast majority of the scariest things a president can do, like the command the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of officials, he couldn’t be held criminally liable even if he was impeached. It was more than Trump asked for. They may have even managed to torpedo both of his state criminal cases.
The Supreme Court majority is just so worried that poor president’s will get harassed by prosecutors afterwards? Good! He should be afraid of breaking the law, just like everyone else. And if that can be proven in a court of law, he should go to jail, just like everyone else. The supreme court has now elevated the president above the rule of law and abdicated the responsibilities of the judiciary branch.
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole “official” vs “non official” acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
You’re right! Even easier. Article 2 power use again, cannot be questioned. Pre emptive pardons for everyone involved. We were all worried about the possibility of Trump self pardoning, but this court has made that possibility seem quaint in comparison to what they’ve bestowed.
Read the ruling. They’re quite clear about the absolute immunity for any use of executive powers granted by the constitution. That includes things like being commander in chief of the military, powers of pardon, appointing and firing of officials, and more! I even linked it for you to read. Don’t have to take my word for it. And if you can’t figure out the implications of the ruling read justice Sotomayor’s and justice Jackson’s dissents.
A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”.
Incorrect, according to this ruling, his use of the military has absolute immunity. It doesn’t matter what he’s doing with it, they can’t even question if it’s an official act or not. That only factors in when using powers not delegated in the constitution. You do point out some more absurdities in the majority’s ruling though, theoretically a court could hold troops accountable for unlawful orders but could not hold the executive accountable for giving them. Moot point though, who’s bringing the charges against the troops in this situation? President has absolute criminal immunity for hiring and firing, just fire any prosecutors whether that’s justice department or military justice if they try to do so.
The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act.
Null and void, they specifically state that not only the court doesn’t have the power to question, neither does congress. The supreme court just made posse comitatus toilet paper.
The only way out for this mess is replacing the justices or a constitutional ammendment that’s says, yes we still have the rule of law for everyone, including the president.
And yes I read the whole thing. And if the majority can’t see what they have enabled they’re stupid. But I don’t think it’s stupidity, they’re smart people. That only leaves malice. Or some very different political ideals than I hold about the rule of law at least.
People keep seeming to forget about the super delegate reform Bernie fought for. They are still there now, 15% of all the delegates (a lot of the super delegates being democratic elected officials like members of congress since that automatically gives the status). But they can’t vote in the first ballot any longer. They could only vote in a contested election in subsequent ballots, after all the other pledged delegates are unbound as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Even before those reforms, they never really made a difference in any convention, except possibly 1984 when they helped push Mondale from a plurality to a majority by voting for him on the first ballot.
I’m not personally in favor of them at all, but it’s not nearly as bad as it’s made out to be sometimes. If we go to an open convention though, unless there’s a majority choice on the first ballot, they may play a role on subsequent ballots.