ianrussell.bsky.social
Law student, writer, progressive Christian, Oxford comma enjoyer. he/him
169 posts
479 followers
405 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Amazon’s business model—delivering stuff to homes—would not be viable without the roads the government maintains, or USPS providing “last mile” delivery in places where it’s not profitable to deliver. You know this.
comment in response to
post
But McCain was also literally dying at the time whereas Collins and Murkowski still have political ambitions, so… yeah.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, he gave an impassioned speech criticizing the process and then voted to move the bill forward anyway, and then voted no on the final passage. It was nuts.
comment in response to
post
Also that district clearly doesn’t mind—Miller-Meeks was a four-peat by the time she finally (just barely) won.
comment in response to
post
More or less the same thing as “concepts of a plan” or “infrastructure week,” I would imagine.
comment in response to
post
Looks like what he’s actually proposing is raising taxes in *more expensive* neighborhoods, which incidentally have more white people in them.
comment in response to
post
Sticking people in a camp surrounded by alligators is literally Bond villain-esque. They’re not even trying to hide it at this point.
comment in response to
post
Probably the latter, but Trump would’ve put someone just as insane in that job anyway, so on balance it’s still good that he’s not a senator.
comment in response to
post
It no longer surprises me to see this sort of insane slop from Trump. What will always surprise me is that GOP politicians who are supposed to know better will pretend this isn’t utterly insane.
comment in response to
post
Right, and the flip side is that to *not* be a U.S. citizen, you need to both *not* have a U.S. citizen parent and *not* be born on U.S. soil. Hence why McCain and Harris (and Ted Cruz and others) were/are eligible but Mamdani isn’t.
comment in response to
post
It’s both. Kamala Harris’s parents weren’t US citizens, but she was born in Oakland so she’s a natural-born citizen. Mamdani is ineligible because he’s a naturalized citizen.
comment in response to
post
Iraq certainly didn’t help Bush’s popularity but he didn’t crater until Katrina, so 🤷♂️
comment in response to
post
That’s pretty much exactly the reasoning of Bostock!
comment in response to
post
One of my church’s central principles is “belonging is more important than believing,” which I think gets at the same point.
comment in response to
post
Tulsi is weirdly good at convincing people that she agrees with them despite all evidence to the contrary. Almost Trumpian in that regard.
comment in response to
post
Here is my cat tolerating some nonsense from the little one.
comment in response to
post
How do we get people to appreciate nuance? Yes, nearly all politicians obfuscate, exaggerate, or stretch the truth (some more than others). I’m not saying that’s good! But there’s a difference between that and Trump’s practice of just inventing his own reality and changing it as he goes.
comment in response to
post
Aren’t there off-brand versions? I don’t think the one we have is actually an Instant Pot (but it’s still great).
comment in response to
post
We need someone who understands why there have been so many fires. Vote for the arsonist!
comment in response to
post
I mean, true in general, but on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, specifically, an elected incumbent hasn’t lost since at least 1967 (the ones who lost in 2008 and 2020 were appointed).
comment in response to
post
It’s extremely rare for an elected incumbent to lose reelection, isn’t it?
comment in response to
post
If anything, Bragg deserves to be honored for his contributions to the Union’s victory.
comment in response to
post
I think the “triumph” is not the rise in numbers per se, but rather that advocates were able to maintain access to abortion despite a hostile legal landscape in half of the country. But it’s hard to measure “access” directly so the number of abortions is a decent proxy. (I agree the wording is bad.)
comment in response to
post
Remember that one of the seceding states’ main grievances was that the federal government wasn’t adequately enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act in the North.
It’s always been “states’ rights for me but not for thee.”
comment in response to
post
Yes, but 2028 is three years away, and candidates whose star rises too soon tend not to win the nomination in the end.
comment in response to
post
Turns out a lot of aspects of politics are easier if you have no principles other than winning.
comment in response to
post
And she didn’t immediately get the fifth place trophy because of a tiebreaker, so she had to hold a sixth place trophy as a placeholder until they were able to obtain and give her a fifth place trophy. The absolute horror.
comment in response to
post
"They're both FINALLY saying all the TRUE things about each other that Democrats have been saying for months.
But also, there's a serious side to this. This fight didn't come out of nowhere: it was obvious that when you put two completely sociopathic billionaire narcissist credit-hounds together it
comment in response to
post
It’s also fair to wonder whether the test will *really* be the same as applied on the ground—even if you tell judges that the doctrine is to apply the same standard (which I agree is what the statue says!), the evidence of anti-straight discrimination is almost always going to be less convincing.
comment in response to
post
And of course that goes double (or more) if you want to walk or bike. We’ve prioritized making cars safer for the people inside them, which is a good thing in itself, except it comes at the expense of literally everyone else on the road.
comment in response to
post
I suspect many Trump voters legitimately believed “mass deportations” meant “deport all the criminals and gang members that Biden is letting in.” Never mind that (1) Biden’s priority *was* removing criminals and (2) it was obvious Trump-style deportation quotas would mean grabbing low hanging fruit.
comment in response to
post
Many, many voters thought Trump would change immigration policy to target gang members and other violent criminals, when THAT WAS ALREADY THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY UNDER BIDEN (and Obama before him).
Trump's actual policy was to change it to target abuelas who had been here 20 years instead.
comment in response to
post
Don’t worry, they’ll rediscover their love for federalism and states’ rights as soon as they no longer control the federal government.
comment in response to
post
I would add that there’s always some possibility the president will experience some decline in capacity during their term, which is why it’s really important to elect presidents who will surround themselves with competent people (which Biden did and Trump has not).