• 0 Posts
  • 708 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle






  • but that’s not what, “control of the Senate,” means

    I would say, that the ability to intact a law, any law, is what controlling the senate means. If you want to argue about the merit of the specific definition of 50+, then I see your point, but I don’t see the merit of that definition.
    The question is “why does Democratic party doesn’t make many laws”, and part of the answer for it is that they almost never are in power, and when they have it, it’s for a short period of time, and they only able to do one thing if any, like with Obama and ACA example.





  • That’s because they didn’t control the senate, they barely had nominal parity which wasn’t even a true one because there is like you said always be several right wing people from right wing states that are nominally Democrats but don’t support the party consensus. In order to actually control it they need a bigger majority. This conspiracy theory that they do it on purpose is founded on the same principal that alexes joanses of the world are always blabbering about, talking about a shadow government is always fun, but it’s counterproductive.






  • Evidently, the only thing it’s good for is providing endless dribble for snake oil salesmen to scam people with. There is an endless barrage of “our latest and greatest magic just solved a problem” and when the dust settles it’s always some combination of exaggeration, lies, misunderstanding, and stolen work.
    Even from my very limited understanding of high level fusion related math, I can bet it’s the same case here. At best they’re not lying and they provided a proof for some old math theorem. What I know is that fusion isn’t “one proven math problem away”, and I bet even if they’re not lying it will not help that much if at all.