Shaun, some Breadtuber guy, is immediately going ahead and trashing being in favor of Biden.
Shaun, some Breadtuber guy, is immediately going ahead and trashing being in favor of Biden.
Oh, so he's just continuing the shtick he's had going since Biden was declared the presumptive nominee. Shaun's also been collecting thousands of dollars a month on Patreon while only putting out a single video every few months, if not longer. The time between his two most recent videos was over eight months. They're all pretty well made, but I've been questioning how much of the work he does producing them after Jen, who he used the share the channel with, claimed to do most, if not all, of the work on researching his video on the Unite the Right rally (https://twitter.com/deaths_cool/status/1287872558277132289). She kinda soured my view on him, especially since by that point I'd unfollowed him on Twitter because all he ever seems to do on Twitter nowadays is bitch about Biden and the Democrats. He's British, for the record.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/01/21/democrats-caught-flat-footed-by-total-control-of-washington-491476
Oh my goodness that headline.
To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely TO BE DONE, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods.
Suppose, for instance, we were engaged in a war, in conjunction with one foreign nation, against another. Suppose the necessity of our situation demanded peace, and the interest or ambition of our ally led him to seek the prosecution of the war, with views that might justify us in making separate terms. In such a state of things, this ally of ours would evidently find it much easier, by his bribes and intrigues, to tie up the hands of government from making peace, where two thirds of all the votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case, he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last, a greater number. Upon the same principle, it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And, in a commercial view, we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not to be regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. An hereditary monarch, though often disposed to sacrifice his subjects to his ambition, has so great a personal interest in the government and in the external glory of the nation, that it is not easy for a foreign power to give him an equivalent for what he would sacrifice by treachery to the state. The world has accordingly been witness to few examples of this species of royal prostitution, though there have been abundant specimens of every other kind.
As connected with the objection against the number of representatives, may properly be here noticed, that which has been suggested against the number made competent for legislative business. It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.
By electing Jon and the Reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives, the lives of the people all across this country, because their election will put an end to the block in Washington on that two-thousand-dollar stimulus check, that money that will go out the door immediately to help people who are in real trouble.
As opposed to letting Assad go - which happens to align PERFECTLY with the dictator cheerleader's goals.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1365326482160185344
Rep. Jim Jordan has a question for you all:
"Instead of spending 1.9 trillion dollars, why don't we:
-Go back to work
-Go back to school
-Go back to normal"
I'll bet none of you can answer that! It's not like there's a plague or something going on...
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1365326482160185344
Rep. Jim Jordan has a question for you all:
"Instead of spending 1.9 trillion dollars, why don't we:
-Go back to work
-Go back to school
-Go back to normal"
I'll bet none of you can answer that! It's not like there's a plague or something going on...
Instead of listening to Jim Jordan, how about we:
listen to the young athletes Jim Jordan let get molested.
When the Senate Parliamentarian says that Republicans can't enact their policies (2001, Bush tax cuts): Trent Lott fires the Senate Parliamentarian and finds one who says that they can.
When the Senate Parliamentarian says that Democrats can't enact their policies (2021, minimum wage increase): Chuck Schumer does nothing, Joe Biden issues a toothless statement expressing his disagreement, and Kamala Harris says she won't override the Parliamentarian's advice.
If Democratic Senators wanted to increase the minimum wage, they could. That they aren't doing so means that enough of them don't want to, despite its high approval among the public.
When the Senate Parliamentarian says that Republicans can't enact their policies (2001, Bush tax cuts): Trent Lott fires the Senate Parliamentarian and finds one who says that they can.
When the Senate Parliamentarian says that Democrats can't enact their policies (2021, minimum wage increase): Chuck Schumer does nothing, Joe Biden issues a toothless statement expressing his disagreement, and Kamala Harris says she won't override the Parliamentarian's advice.
If Democratic Senators wanted to increase the minimum wage, they could. That they aren't doing so means that enough of them don't want to, despite its high approval among the public.
Do you think the parliamentarian is wrong about procedure, or do you think she is right about procedure and should be ignored anyway?
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1365326482160185344
Rep. Jim Jordan has a question for you all:
"Instead of spending 1.9 trillion dollars, why don't we:
-Go back to work
-Go back to school
-Go back to normal"
I'll bet none of you can answer that! It's not like there's a plague or something going on...
Instead of listening to Jim Jordan, how about we:
listen to the young athletes Jim Jordan let get molested.
Instead of listening to the young athletes Jim Jordan let get molested how about we:
Listen to the sound of Jim Jordan's screams as each young man gets him alone in a room with a baseball bat for five minutes?
https://twitter.com/Josiah_Walrus/status/1367389564847804419
They're putting that stimulus check on the back burner, they're putting the minimum wage hike on the back burner, and they're dropping bombs on Syria right now, and those bombs are kind of expensive for a dude who owes me two thousand dollars.
Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Glenn Greenwald is NOT a leftist. He just plays one when he finds the position convinient. What Glenn Greenwald is, is anti-Western World. Which is why he's so quick to defend people like Vlad Putin, who are absolute evil, but are fight the "true villains" of the Western World.