Alas, I fear that even this will not be "kitchen tabley" enough for Dem leadership to take action. Playing to eek out House control 18 mos from now will. not. cut. it.
“One becomes Trump-like in one’s opposition to Trump… The risk in an era like this is that you become like the thing you oppose.” This sums it all up - my take-away from Abundance and my disgust for the D Party in this moment. Incuriosity is America’s cancer.
...and we need Jed's staff...people dedicated to America and who are people who understand the issues in depth...this regime is actually the polar opposite of your west wing example.
I'm adding a critical thing we need to speak of in the "big, beautiful, bill" An Attack on the Judicial Branch!
"The first of these outrageous policies — buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders.
A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their rulings.
When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply, including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail time as a punishment.
But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.
By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear.
Courts have already ruled at least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary injunction sought by CLC that halted Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections. In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.
In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law.
Thank you both - so much. One thing no one (of course I haven't read/heard everyone!) seems to have mentioned these days regarding Democratic limpness and the failures and ills of the mainstream media: that it's actually possible that if the Democrats didn't regard the word "socialism" like some kind of bent and toxic version of voodoo, and if papers such as the N.Y. Times hadn't drooled their way through endless reports on Hillary Clinton's e-mails and then Hunter Biden's fuck-ups it's actually possible that, had Bernie run in 2016 - because he WAS and has always been for the working class etc. and so forth - possibly there would have been at least no Trump in 2017 and who knows who thereafter. For Bernie of course actually cares more about his constituents than himself. I saw a video of a town hall he did sometime soon after Trump was in charge the first time. (Perhaps you were with him at that very time, Anand?)The way he - a Senator trying to find alternatives to coal use and coal mining - introduced himself to a gathering of coal miners and their families, was, "I want to thank you all because when I was growing up in Brooklyn, the only heat we had came from a coal-burning stove." He then proceeded to listen, truly listen, to whatever they had to say. They spoke predominantly of two things. First was their pride of being a coal miner and often coming from a long line of them. The second: that, as far as life in their town at that time was concerned, coal mining was the only lucrative enough job that could support a family. Bernie just listened. At the end, aside from thanking them, he simply asked (thoughtfully, respectfully), "If there were another industry that could come here and not be so hard on your bodies and the town physically, and provided you with the same kind of income, health support, etc. would you consider taking it?" There was a general consensual nod indicating that they would. And clearly immense gratitude for him having wended his way to their town.
Thank you so much for having Ånand on Jim. He is one of our brightest minds and has character and care for others. Great get. ♥️🇺🇸
Alas, I fear that even this will not be "kitchen tabley" enough for Dem leadership to take action. Playing to eek out House control 18 mos from now will. not. cut. it.
Call it affordable care act : that is the name of it. Keep affordable the front and center word .
This is time for Obama to resurface and defend his health care agenda
Congressional Republicans should be held accountable for following suit
Love the question to Aaron about GenZ caring about the deficit… The fact that Jim was able to care about the deficit when he was young IS the point.
“One becomes Trump-like in one’s opposition to Trump… The risk in an era like this is that you become like the thing you oppose.” This sums it all up - my take-away from Abundance and my disgust for the D Party in this moment. Incuriosity is America’s cancer.
🚂 Snowpiercer wasn’t sci-fi — it was a warning.
🎓 Kids are taught the Engine is eternal.
💼 Class is destiny.
🔥 Rebellion is engineered.
🌍 The only escape? Derail it.
https://doctorsofcourage.org/the-derailment-of-americas-eternal-engine/
What does Trump want, ultimately? When he is nicely tucked at night in his gilded bed, how do you think he finishes the line: I wish upon a star…?
...and we need Jed's staff...people dedicated to America and who are people who understand the issues in depth...this regime is actually the polar opposite of your west wing example.
I'm adding a critical thing we need to speak of in the "big, beautiful, bill" An Attack on the Judicial Branch!
"The first of these outrageous policies — buried in Section 70302 of the legislation— would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders.
A court’s ability to hold bad actors in contempt is a vital enforcement power that judges can use to compel compliance with their rulings.
When somebody chooses to violate a court order, the judge who issued the ruling has a few different options to force them to comply, including holding them in contempt and issuing sanctions, fines, or even jail time as a punishment.
But the reconciliation bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court can use its contempt power to enforce injunctions or restraining orders meant to halt illegal actions.
By restricting this authority, the House bill threatens the power of the judicial branch. On its own, that represents an attack on the rule of law and the separation of powers that underlies our democracy. But in the context of our current political moment, a more specific goal is unfortunately clear.
Courts have already ruled at least 170 times against the Trump administration, including a preliminary injunction sought by CLC that halted Trump’s unconstitutional attempt to change the rules for federal elections. In response to many of these rulings, the president has resisted compliance and waged intimidation campaigns targeting the judges responsible.
In light of all this, the House bill seems squarely and unacceptably focused on shielding the Trump administration from accountability when it breaks the law.
Thank you both - so much. One thing no one (of course I haven't read/heard everyone!) seems to have mentioned these days regarding Democratic limpness and the failures and ills of the mainstream media: that it's actually possible that if the Democrats didn't regard the word "socialism" like some kind of bent and toxic version of voodoo, and if papers such as the N.Y. Times hadn't drooled their way through endless reports on Hillary Clinton's e-mails and then Hunter Biden's fuck-ups it's actually possible that, had Bernie run in 2016 - because he WAS and has always been for the working class etc. and so forth - possibly there would have been at least no Trump in 2017 and who knows who thereafter. For Bernie of course actually cares more about his constituents than himself. I saw a video of a town hall he did sometime soon after Trump was in charge the first time. (Perhaps you were with him at that very time, Anand?)The way he - a Senator trying to find alternatives to coal use and coal mining - introduced himself to a gathering of coal miners and their families, was, "I want to thank you all because when I was growing up in Brooklyn, the only heat we had came from a coal-burning stove." He then proceeded to listen, truly listen, to whatever they had to say. They spoke predominantly of two things. First was their pride of being a coal miner and often coming from a long line of them. The second: that, as far as life in their town at that time was concerned, coal mining was the only lucrative enough job that could support a family. Bernie just listened. At the end, aside from thanking them, he simply asked (thoughtfully, respectfully), "If there were another industry that could come here and not be so hard on your bodies and the town physically, and provided you with the same kind of income, health support, etc. would you consider taking it?" There was a general consensual nod indicating that they would. And clearly immense gratitude for him having wended his way to their town.
“Sen. Amy Klobuchar says U.S. ‘not in a constitutional crisis’ thanks to the courts: Full interview.” She has been a stunning disappointment.
It's not directly Trump, it's Stephen Miller, who's behind this.
My non Trump action is to avoid name calling . Daily challenge.
Suspending habeas corpus possibly
Does authoritarianism even resonate with average voter?