ericnonymous.bsky.social
503 posts
36 followers
46 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It doesn't matter, the president doesn't have the authority to direct Congress to do anything
comment in response to
post
Those definitions are also incredibly stupid on their own merit.
comment in response to
post
Zoomers call anyone over 25 elderly
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile, hasn't the number of FDA employees decreased due to DOGE?
comment in response to
post
What is this shit? The last time I checked hormone therapy, surgery, and updates to vital documents were all legal.
comment in response to
post
I genuinely believe there's a whole lot of people on the road who cannot be trusted to operate a motor vehicle because we've structured our society and economy around driving being necessary to hold a job and go shopping.
comment in response to
post
You make a compelling argument regarding churros
comment in response to
post
And when public opinion eventually turned against the war they acted like it was somehow impossible to predict that it was doomed to be a disaster from the start
comment in response to
post
More or less
comment in response to
post
Yeah.. looking at events like the Salem witch trials and they never killed any witches
comment in response to
post
Being specific matters here as a knee-jerk reaction can result in some very damaging unintended consequences as highlighted by @proofistruth.bsky.social. I personally think the last thing we need is to make it harder to organize to contact and yell at our representatives
comment in response to
post
More that I think you have no idea what you're trying to ban. Is it campaign contributions? Is it elected officials meeting with constituents? Is it political advertising? Is it endorsements from organizations? The definition of lobbying is simply people telling congress their opinion
comment in response to
post
Basically, I've seen that knee jerk reaction before about 'just ban lobbying' from people who don't think about what it actually means and how that would be impossible to do while still following the constitution
comment in response to
post
Alternatively, there's no political ads despite the 1st Amendment, but with term limits wouldn't it be nice if said Senator had a job after this term? Like at our think tank. Assuming the Senator is on board with supporting our mission. Unless you're going to bar ex-members of congress from working.
comment in response to
post
And as long as campaign contributions are legal, you'll have lobbying. Or even if you ban that, as long as outside groups can endorse candidates they can run an ad endorsing said candidate, assuming the candidate supports the bill they like.
comment in response to
post
Okay, but it's extremely difficult to say that a group of people should be able to contact a member of Congress. Lobbying isn't a cartoonish idea of giving a Senator a big pile of cash, it's more about someone from an organization scheduling a meeting with said Senator.
comment in response to
post
Term limits hand power to lobbyists as they become the only ones who have actual experience writing and passing legislation.
comment in response to
post
Correct. I'm either reading the book for enjoyment, which means I don't want the summary or I actually need detailed information in which case a summary does me no good.
comment in response to
post
It's better than the alternative
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Trans people famously hate games
comment in response to
post
Sounds about right. Fascists struggle with the idea that other people aren't carbon copies of themselves and so try to forcibly enforce others into conforming to that ideal. It just doesn't line up with reality so it ultimately fails.
comment in response to
post
Also yes, I think this is entirely correct. Great care is absolutely available, if you can afford it. But continued advancements require public investment from which billionaires absolutely benefit from.
comment in response to
post
R&D spending by country. The US and China are the global leaders. I'm not disputing your link, I'm saying that it's not measuring research.
comment in response to
post
You do realize that the people treating the disease are not the same people who develop medicine, right? Until this year the US has outspent the world in research funding, both public and private sector. That's not the same thing as how close people are to hospitals or number of physicians.
comment in response to
post
This is a measure of ability to treat patients, not a measure of scientific output. These are two different things.
comment in response to
post
I genuinely think China is legitimately the only country positioned to take over as the world's leader in science. They've got the money and the will to spend it, but not necessarily the right talent or intellectual environment yet. But I think that will follow with enough investment.
comment in response to
post
I don't think this is as true as you'd like it to be. Europe, Canada, and Australia have not been doing a good job of funding their current talent, so they aren't in a position to take on more than a handful of high profile scientists. China is the country that's been heavily investing into science.
comment in response to
post
Which ironically includes the billionaires who can still get cancer
comment in response to
post
So why not share the results you think are impressive?
comment in response to
post
Just be careful because we really don't want Newsom to gain additional political power over this. Him leveraging this into a White House run is very much not a good outcome as he'll immediately stab his supporters in the back
comment in response to
post
In my experience milsim games are populated with either ardent leftists or the alt right with very little middle ground
comment in response to
post
When wasn't it an Oracle? This is from over 20 years ago.
comment in response to
post
He wants to be royalty and thinks this is how royals refer to themselves
comment in response to
post
Cutting taxes didn't reduce the debt when Reagan did it, it didn't work when Dubya did it, and it didn't work when Trump did it. Why would it work this time?
comment in response to
post
Wow, if this trend of him gaining a percentage point every 6 months continues it'll only be a short 33 years until he gains net popularity
comment in response to
post
I don't have an easy solution, but I do think that the first step is to recognize what we're actually dealing with.
comment in response to
post
For a couple of examples. They think cutting cancer research is good, because they think scientists are actively causing cancer. They think meteorology is a waste because it's all based on lies to get Soros dollars. The normal nudging doesn't work here.
comment in response to
post
I think the thing we have to understand right now is that we're not working with well meaning people who are misinformed or have different priorities. The president is a conspiracy theorist and has appointed other conspiracy theorists to top roles.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, measles
comment in response to
post
Not really any different than conservatives thinking Star Trek embraces right wing values.
comment in response to
post
And trust will be lost. People will have moved on to other work by necessity and be very hesitant to return to prior projects because who's to say that it wouldn't get defunded in 4-8 years. This also assumes that there will be swift action, which I highly doubt will happen.
comment in response to
post
Oh yeah, people are definitely going to die from this decision.
comment in response to
post
I sometimes think about the senator who traveled to El Salvador and how the DNC convinced him it was bad optics to continue talking about the issue (Trump still hasn't "facilitated" Garcia's return).
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Walking? What are we, a bunch of Europeans?
comment in response to
post
I will not be taking biology lessons from someone who thinks women can't have hemophilia. There is no chromosomal combination that is exempt from the disorder.
comment in response to
post
This is greater in magnitude from his prior proposals, but he very much tried this in his first term. For example, in 2017 he wanted to cut the NIH by 18%, the CDC by 17%, and the EPA by 31%. What I'm more concerned about is he might get his way this time around. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
They are free to vote for a Democrat, that was always allowed and even encouraged