@yitzi2.bsky.social
I'd trade that for a citywide ban, enforced by fines that increase the longer you continue to offend, on oncoming-driver-blinding headlights.
December 11, 2025 at 6:28 PM
I'd trade that for a citywide ban, enforced by fines that increase the longer you continue to offend, on oncoming-driver-blinding headlights.
They *really* wanted to make sure it would never rise again.
December 11, 2025 at 6:26 PM
They *really* wanted to make sure it would never rise again.
And, from what I can see, I think they honestly bought into the cult.
December 11, 2025 at 6:23 PM
And, from what I can see, I think they honestly bought into the cult.
I think the real question here is: Did they vote for Trump to "own the libs" or because they honestly bought into the cult?
If the former, then reducing division (e.g. via removing FPTP) would help a lot.
If the latter, it won't, and a deeper cultural shift is the only answer that will work.
If the former, then reducing division (e.g. via removing FPTP) would help a lot.
If the latter, it won't, and a deeper cultural shift is the only answer that will work.
December 11, 2025 at 6:23 PM
I think the real question here is: Did they vote for Trump to "own the libs" or because they honestly bought into the cult?
If the former, then reducing division (e.g. via removing FPTP) would help a lot.
If the latter, it won't, and a deeper cultural shift is the only answer that will work.
If the former, then reducing division (e.g. via removing FPTP) would help a lot.
If the latter, it won't, and a deeper cultural shift is the only answer that will work.
Would it help to have a more third-friendly-party system? (I favor "you can vote against a president rather than for one".) Definitely somewhat, but would it stop Trump? I'm not so sure...
December 11, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Would it help to have a more third-friendly-party system? (I favor "you can vote against a president rather than for one".) Definitely somewhat, but would it stop Trump? I'm not so sure...
Would it help to switch to popular vote for the president? Maybe a little, but not that much; it'd just change *which* population becomes dangerous if they get culty.
December 11, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Would it help to switch to popular vote for the president? Maybe a little, but not that much; it'd just change *which* population becomes dangerous if they get culty.
But that doesn't give us MAGA, and doesn't give us a Congress that will willingly abdicate power to a tyrant. *Those* are due to deeper cultural problems.
December 11, 2025 at 6:19 PM
But that doesn't give us MAGA, and doesn't give us a Congress that will willingly abdicate power to a tyrant. *Those* are due to deeper cultural problems.
I *strongly* disagree here.
Yes, FPTP creates a two-party system and encourages division, and the electoral college skews things toward rural states.
Yes, FPTP creates a two-party system and encourages division, and the electoral college skews things toward rural states.
December 11, 2025 at 6:19 PM
I *strongly* disagree here.
Yes, FPTP creates a two-party system and encourages division, and the electoral college skews things toward rural states.
Yes, FPTP creates a two-party system and encourages division, and the electoral college skews things toward rural states.
So how would *you* write a system to handle the core issue here (a cult leader, together with a proudly ignorant and uneducated electorate that *wants* him and his supporters in office)?
December 11, 2025 at 5:42 PM
So how would *you* write a system to handle the core issue here (a cult leader, together with a proudly ignorant and uneducated electorate that *wants* him and his supporters in office)?
25th Amendment is not impeachment.
Both were written for different aspects of this situation.
The 25th for the fact that he is not competent and appears to be senile.
And impeachment for the facts that he is evil, selfish, and Putin's lapdog.
Both were written for different aspects of this situation.
The 25th for the fact that he is not competent and appears to be senile.
And impeachment for the facts that he is evil, selfish, and Putin's lapdog.
December 11, 2025 at 5:40 PM
25th Amendment is not impeachment.
Both were written for different aspects of this situation.
The 25th for the fact that he is not competent and appears to be senile.
And impeachment for the facts that he is evil, selfish, and Putin's lapdog.
Both were written for different aspects of this situation.
The 25th for the fact that he is not competent and appears to be senile.
And impeachment for the facts that he is evil, selfish, and Putin's lapdog.
Somehow, I get the idea that Paul of Tarsus would probably have been a Republican voter if he lived in the present day...
December 11, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Somehow, I get the idea that Paul of Tarsus would probably have been a Republican voter if he lived in the present day...
*what the headline says they did.
December 11, 2025 at 5:36 PM
*what the headline says they did.
A more honest headline would be "Supreme Court likely ruling means Trump will be able to, on his own, violate civil rights in any way that previously would have only been allowed by telling his pet Congress to cooperate".
And, by the way, that does *nothing* to help him vs. A1 challenges.
And, by the way, that does *nothing* to help him vs. A1 challenges.
December 11, 2025 at 5:36 PM
A more honest headline would be "Supreme Court likely ruling means Trump will be able to, on his own, violate civil rights in any way that previously would have only been allowed by telling his pet Congress to cooperate".
And, by the way, that does *nothing* to help him vs. A1 challenges.
And, by the way, that does *nothing* to help him vs. A1 challenges.
They have, and they haven't actually said what the article says they did.
*If* they rule the way he expects in the Slaughter case, then that allows Trump to abuse governmental power *in ways that he previously already could with Congressional collaboration*, and of course that raises rights issues.
*If* they rule the way he expects in the Slaughter case, then that allows Trump to abuse governmental power *in ways that he previously already could with Congressional collaboration*, and of course that raises rights issues.
December 11, 2025 at 5:34 PM
They have, and they haven't actually said what the article says they did.
*If* they rule the way he expects in the Slaughter case, then that allows Trump to abuse governmental power *in ways that he previously already could with Congressional collaboration*, and of course that raises rights issues.
*If* they rule the way he expects in the Slaughter case, then that allows Trump to abuse governmental power *in ways that he previously already could with Congressional collaboration*, and of course that raises rights issues.
True. He's not smart enough for it.
But the question that started this discussion was about what *his* goal is, not what the goal of the actual masterminds is.
But the question that started this discussion was about what *his* goal is, not what the goal of the actual masterminds is.
December 11, 2025 at 5:30 PM
True. He's not smart enough for it.
But the question that started this discussion was about what *his* goal is, not what the goal of the actual masterminds is.
But the question that started this discussion was about what *his* goal is, not what the goal of the actual masterminds is.
I think Project 2025 is his handlers' goal, not his.
I highly doubt he's even read it.
I highly doubt he's even read it.
December 11, 2025 at 5:26 PM
I think Project 2025 is his handlers' goal, not his.
I highly doubt he's even read it.
I highly doubt he's even read it.
Maybe we need the option of recall petitions (or direct voter overrides) for Congresspeople?
December 11, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Maybe we need the option of recall petitions (or direct voter overrides) for Congresspeople?
Yeah...so different from reality, in which Republican presidents get us into pointless wars even when they are popular.
(G.W. Bush was pretty popular in the wake of 9/11 IIRC, and still got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.)
(G.W. Bush was pretty popular in the wake of 9/11 IIRC, and still got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.)
December 11, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Yeah...so different from reality, in which Republican presidents get us into pointless wars even when they are popular.
(G.W. Bush was pretty popular in the wake of 9/11 IIRC, and still got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.)
(G.W. Bush was pretty popular in the wake of 9/11 IIRC, and still got us into Iraq and Afghanistan.)
True.
But that isn't much consolation to the ousted dictators, especially since they tend to be among those whose blood is shed before it's over.
But that isn't much consolation to the ousted dictators, especially since they tend to be among those whose blood is shed before it's over.
December 11, 2025 at 5:21 PM
True.
But that isn't much consolation to the ousted dictators, especially since they tend to be among those whose blood is shed before it's over.
But that isn't much consolation to the ousted dictators, especially since they tend to be among those whose blood is shed before it's over.
That would be a compelling argument if his opponents in the minority actually were the ones who shut down the government...
December 11, 2025 at 5:19 PM
That would be a compelling argument if his opponents in the minority actually were the ones who shut down the government...