mumblius.bsky.social
25 posts
23 followers
11 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
He’s an errand boy.
comment in response to
post
Even if eggs weren’t down before midterms, the for-profit media is unlikely to give that a lot of coverage. They create “narratives” and expensive eggs were the narrative for 2024. They’d view it as a “rerun” if they went back to it in 2026. They wouldn’t want to bore the audience.
comment in response to
post
With too many on the left, politics isn’t really about practical, real-world choices involving life-and-death considerations for actual human beings. Instead, it’s a personal branding exercise. They wanted people to know they were too cool for the Dems.
comment in response to
post
He already did once. Looks like we’ll let him do it a second time.
comment in response to
post
Lefties, especially young ones, are easy to manipulate. They think of politics as a personal branding exercise. So, all the oligarchs need to do is hand them a reason to think it’ll make them look uncool to support a Democrat, and they’ll remove themselves from the equation. That was Gaza this time.
comment in response to
post
Keep a fair amount of money on hand in the form of actual cash, so that even if your accounts and credit cards get frozen, you’ve got enough cash to relocate.
comment in response to
post
That assumes courts will follow the law. We already know they gladly ignore it for Trump. He has stacked the federal courts with principle-free loyalists.
comment in response to
post
Despots ALWAYS have an argument that there are special circumstances allowing the usual words to be ignored. If a minor matter like 3,000 dead on 9/11 could justify it for YEARS, how about a pandemic or a crime wave with many times that many deaths? Once we made an exception, we were screwed.
comment in response to
post
The problem is it doesn’t matter. George W. Bush once openly admitted that he knowingly ordered warrantless electronic surveillance of US persons (a felony) and there were no consequences. There are never any consequences for the powerful breaking the law.
comment in response to
post
Yep. If that goes down, it would really show that this was never about worrying people’s personal data would be misappropriated, or that the platform would be politicized. It was just about the Republicans wanting to be sure that it was one of their people who had that power.
comment in response to
post
So is syphilis.
comment in response to
post
The judge could have given him fines, if that was what was standard for those felonies. Or, for special cases like his where there was no remorse and open contempt for the court, if the standard was prison time, then give him prison time. Instead, he got placed above the law.
comment in response to
post
I have an issue with felons getting no repercussions because they’re powerful. That’s not having a hissy fit. It’s having a respect for the ideal of everyone being equal under the law.
comment in response to
post
Just to be clear, “slave labor” now means voluntarily doing work for pay.
comment in response to
post
So, basically, the judge had to effectively rule that powerful people are above the law, because if he didn’t, there was a chance that some other judges would do so, and this way we get an utterly meaningless symbolic victory? Oh, yay.
comment in response to
post
For all practical purposes, he wasn’t sentenced. Instead, the judge just formalized the idea that if you’re sufficiently powerful, you can commit as many felonies as you like, and show not a bit of remorse, and you won’t even get a slap on the wrist.
comment in response to
post
To be clear, this was sentencing in name only. What actually happened is that the judge formalized the idea that if you’re sufficiently powerful, you a commit felonies with impunity, showing no remorse, and not even get a slap on the wrist for it.
comment in response to
post
While it’s tempting to dunk on Trump, given how brainless he is, it doesn’t really get us anywhere. We still wind up talking about whatever childish nonsense he injected into the public dialogue, rather than important issues…. like, say, what policy changes to put in place to slow climate change.
comment in response to
post
It’s interesting that even as Zuckerberg is talking up free speech as an excuse to platform fascists and forego fact-checking, it has stepped up actual censorship. I’m currently locked out of my Threads account because apparently they don’t like Zuckerberg criticism.
comment in response to
post
What’s infuriating is that last year the for-profit corporate “news” media ran many times as many stories about inflation (in a year when inflation ran well BELOW historical averages) than climate change (in a year that shattered temperature records by large margins). They manufacture the narrative.
comment in response to
post
Calling this sentencing, though, is ridiculous. All it really involved was formalizing the understanding that we have a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are protected from any consequences for their actions.
comment in response to
post
His first term was a long collection of broken promises. For four years, he promised imminent departure from Afghanistan without following through. He promised a superior replacement for Obamacare. He promised “infrastructure week” and Mexico paying for the border wall, and revealing his taxes, etc.