My biggest pet peeve about the TSA is how they get all annoyed if you don’t know what randomly selected procedures they’ll be using today.

The TSA deliberately randomizes its security procedures. Different airports use different procedures, and the same airport uses different procedures at random. Sometimes you need to take your laptop out of your bag; sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you need to take off your shoes; sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you can just use the metal detector, sometimes they want you to use the rape scanner.

Which is fine I suppose; it makes sense to leave potential threats guessing. But the real problem is the attitude of the TSA agents themselves. It’s not just that they randomly select procedures; it’s that they get angry about it. Start taking off your shoes out of habit at a TSA line that today doesn’t require it? A community college dropout will soon be by, screaming at you for daring to take your shoes off in line. Start taking your laptop out when they’ve decided that today is a day for leaving it in? Some guy that couldn’t even meet the low bar of becoming a regular police officer will be in your face about it within seconds.

Of course there could be rulings on anything. But you’re inventing the “specificity” argument from whole cloth. Historically, there has never been any ruling establishing such limits on presidential pardons. And it’s not even on the radar of potential rulings circulating in right-wing circles. There are a lot of dubious legal theories that right wingers have proposed, such as creative interpretations to get around birthright citizenship. But there aren’t conservative legal scholars out there arguing that the pardoning power should be redefined.

The court could also just straight-up rule various demographic groups to be illegal and worthy of imprisonment without trial. There’s really no point on worrying about purely hypothetical rulings that have no evidence that they are even being considered.

The is an invention entirely of your own creation.

Who says a specific group of people can’t be, “All Americans?” There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides limits on the pardon power. In theory, if they wanted to, a president could issue a pardon for every American for every violation of federal law ever committed.

Grant all 50 states independence. Let them reemerge into whatever new nation or nations the individual states want to form.

Oh my sweet summer child…

Due to two facts:

1. The samurai class in Japan officially lasted way later than you probably think

2. The earliest primitive fax machine existed much earlier than you probably think.

It is technically possible for Abraham Lincoln to have received a fax from a samurai.

There’s no evidence it ever happened, but it technically could have happened.

Your conscious mind does not experience reality directly.

Your conscious mind does not experience reality directly. There is no path going directly from your eyes to your conscious awareness. Rather, the subconscious collects sensory input. It uses that input to create a virtual simulacrum of the world, a big internal 3D model. That internal 3D representation is what you, the conscious part of your mind, actually interacts with and experiences.

You ever wonder how weird it is that people can have intense, debilitating hallucinations? Like schizophrenics seeing and hearing entirely fictional things. Have you ever seen a camera produce anything like that? A flash of light, a distorted image, dead pixels, etc? Sure, those kinds of errors cameras can produce. But a camera will never display a vivid realistic image of a person that wasn’t ever actually in their field of view.

Yet the human mind is capable of this. In the right circumstances, the human brain is capable of spawning entire fictional people into your conscious awareness. This shows that there is an elaborate subconscious processing layer between what our conscious mind observes and direct sensory input. Your conscious mind is basically experiencing a tiny little internal version of The Matrix, entirely generated on its own wetware. And this subconscious processing layer is what makes hallucinations possible. The processes that produce this internal simulation can become corrupted, and thus allows hallucinations.

This architecture is also what makes dreaming possible. If your conscious mind only perceived things upon direct sensory feedback from the eyes, ears, etc., how would dreaming be possible?

You are essentially experiencing reality through an elaborate 3d modeling version of an AI video generator.

If Democrats hadn’t made a bunch of unnecessary and unforced errors, then we could blame it on the corpos and the Russians.

No, I’m relying on polls that actually poll people who voted for Biden but stayed home in 2024. Among those 19 million people, who exit polls would not capture, a full third of them cited Gaza as their reason for staying home.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/harris-gaza

And we’re not talking about a silent majority. We are however talking about a crucial slice of the base that Democrats need if they want any hope of winning a national election.

And you don’t see the glaring obvious problem with relying on EXIT POLLS, when the primary cause Kamala lost was because a substantial portion of Biden’s voter base simply stayed home?

Politically supporting Palestine is a terrible move for either party outside the Dearborn area in Michigan. There isn’t a relevant mass of people that actually care

[CITATION NEEDED]

I honestly wonder if at this point, candidates would be better off pursuing progressive legislation by running a Republicans.

Ideological purity doesn’t matter worth a shit to Republicans. See Republican voters loving the ACA while hating Obamacare. The party that is supposedly pro free market now openly endorses tariffs and regulation on business to advance a host of culture war bugbears. Republicans are not libertarians; the base especially isn’t ideologically opposed to government programs.

I could see a progressive running for the Republican nomination, a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt. And since the Republicans have become the party of the working class, while Democrats are the party of lawyers and big business, the attack lines write themselves. “Democrats are in bed with the insurance industry!” “Democrats want to pick your pocket instead of giving you healthcare!” “Democrats can’t pass a health plan without lining the pockets of their donors!”

The Republican party has proven itself to be much more susceptible to disruption from outside charismatic figures. The Republican base has far more control over the Republican party than the Democratic base does of the Democratic party. In 2016, the establishment Republicans tried to shoot Trump down, but their base overpowered them, and Trump took over the party. Bernie tried the same thing in 2016 and 2020, but the DNC was far more powerful and able to resist this outside takeover.

I really think that now may be the time for a return of progressive Republicans in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt. Promise to fix healthcare and break up big businesses left and right. Throw a bone to the right by promising to exclude illegal immigrants from the healthcare law (which they would never be eligible for anyway.) Hell, you could even write it so it didn’t exclude coverage for abortion and trans healthcare. If someone points that out, just lie and say that your plan does include these exclusions. It’s not like the truth on such things matters anymore. Sell it in simple terms the common man can understand.

I really do wonder if at this point, progressive candidates might gain more traction by running as Republicans. The Republican party is not ideologically libertarian, and it has proven far more receptive to outsiders and new ideas than the Democratic party.

That’s why you only cap rents on buildings that have existed for some time.

Businesses do not plan for 30 years or more in the future. If landlords can’t make an acceptable rate of return within 30 years, they’re not going to build a new house or apartment building.

So you can attach rent control provisions to buildings that are over a few decades old, and it will have zero impact on the financing and construction of new housing. It will only affect buildings after they’ve long since been built and paid for.

You do have to worry about rent controls discouraging landlords from keeping buildings maintained. But that’s why good rent control doesn’t cap rent, but simply limit the rate of increase. If a landlord can afford to keep a building maintained today, they will be able to keep it maintained in the future, even if rent increases are capped to the rate of inflation.

If anything, smart rent controls like this actually encourage the construction of new housing. By limiting rent increases on old buildings, you encourage landlords to knock them down and replace them with bigger and newer buildings that can be rented at any rate. In unregulated markets, landlords can increase profits by colluding to suppress the construction of new housing stock. Why invest the money in new buildings if you can just increase the rents on existing buildings by conspiring to prevent new buildings from being built? Smart rent controls mean that if landlords want to see their profits increase at any rate higher than inflation, then they will need to actually build new housing units.

A few conservative pundits attacked it from the “undeserving” angle. The actual base didn’t give a damn. The actual base thought it was a useless and tone-deaf figleaf of a policy. It was a wonkish policy only a milquetoast centrist could love - a market subsidy that had a long litany of provisos and qualifications. And one that economists stated would just serve to bid house prices up even higher.

The voters didn’t reject progressive wealth redistribution. They rejected half-baked meaningless gestures.

He lost in 2020 because of a coordinated campaign to get all the centrist candidates except Joe Biden to drop out, while Warren stayed in as a progressive candidate against Bernie.

They did this precisely because he was on track to win the popular vote among the Democratic base. No candidate was set to win a majority of the popular vote, but Bernie was looking at a clear plurality.

Bernie WAS winning the popular vote until the DNC deliberately prevented him from doing so.

Did you know that actual historical alchemy was often banned by various kings and monarchs? They did so not due to superstition, or because alchemy didn’t work. Rather, they banned alchemy because it DID work.

We now know that you cannot use chemical reactions, however complex, to turn base metals like lead or copper into silver or gold. However, you can use alchemy to give these base metals the appearance of silver or gold. Alchemists could coat coins in durable coatings that would appear to be like silver or gold. Dip a copper coin in the right solution and it will take on the appearance of gold. And you can then take that coin out of the solution, clean it thoroughly, and the faux-gold treatment will remain. It’s not just a layer of paint resting on the surface; the upper layers of copper atoms have actually chemically reacted to produce compounds that give the appearance of gold or silver.

So, even though alchemy didn’t work to truly turn lead into gold, from the perspective of a monarch, that didn’t actually matter. Because when it comes to currency debasement, making a fake gold coin so good that it fools people is just as good as making real gold. The alchemists couldn’t turn create real gold coins, but they could create counterfeit gold coins that could be quite convincing in the right circumstances. They didn’t need to create a forgery that could fool a modern PhD chemist with a lab full of equipment; they just needed something that could fool an illiterate 12th century merchant at his shop. The process:

1. Take a mold or press a stamp of one of the king’s official gold coins.

2. Use the mold or stamp to cast, press, or forge coins out of cheap metals like copper or tin.

3. Apply an alchemical process to make the copper or tin coin look like gold.

4. Spend the counterfeit coin as a real coin.

Coins were a better target than bulk gold like bars. With a bar, you would notice that the “gold” has an incorrect density. But a counterfeit coin, mixed in with a larger number of legitimate coins? Easy to pass off as the genuine article.

Kings often banned alchemists from their realms. Practicing alchemy was often a capital offense. In terms of true elemental transfiguration, alchemy failed. In terms of the ability to create spendable wealth from nothing, alchemy absolutely did work. From the perspective of a monarch looking to protect their currency from debasement, alchemy was a very real threat.

Many will say that World War Three cannot happen, that nuclear weapons will prevent it. However, this assumes that World War Three has to be global thermonuclear war, rather than some repeat of the previous world wars.

Cities don’t have to be leveled for nations to fight a world war. The US fought two world wars, and we never had our cities and infrastructure decimated. What I can imagine is a future world war where all the major players fight the war in the same way the US fought the two previous wars. Both sides contribute massive resources, adopt wartime economies, throw their whole populations behind the effort etc, but at no point do the various combatants directly attack the main territory and population centers of the other side. You could have a conflict where both sides lost millions of troops fighting it out in some third party territory, but the nukes never fly as all sides realize that invading the home territory of the others is suicide.

It’s actually an open legal question. Actual legal scholars have argued both ways on it. Yes, there is was a deadline in the act Congress passed to send the amendment out for ratification. But the key is that they didn’t include that deadline language in the text of the amendment itself. Some other amendments have language in the text of the amendment that places a deadline on ratification. That is the crucial difference here.

A good argument can be made that Congress can only propose an amendment or not. They can’t attach a bunch of extra provisos to the amendment process. Congress can’t confirm a justice to the court and apply a bunch of conditions to that confirmation. If they want to have a time limit on the ratification of the amendment, the time limit should be in the actual text of the amendment itself.

Works have meanings beyond their surface-level detail and literal meaning. They also have themes and clear implications. And Idiocracy certainly has those. It has clear undertones of eugenics.

The first is the clear implication that population demographics require active management. In the movie, there was no mass government program to encourage births among those of low intelligence and discourage births among the intelligent. This situation developed entirely naturally through culture acting on its own. A viewer could only conclude that if this horrible future is to be avoided, that we need to start worrying a lot more about who is reproducing in what numbers. We either need government mandates or major cultural initiatives to encourage reproduction among the deserving. Idiocracy never outright endorses eugenics, but the implication is obvious. Writers aren’t idiots. They know the clear implications of their work. You don’t end up with a political movie that clearly implies the solution is genocide without realizing that’s the obvious implication.

The second is the theme that intelligence is something that can be bred or selected for at all through the social stratification we have now. Are those with PhDs really more intelligent, by writ of birth, than those that never graduate high school? Or it mostly about circumstances of birth, opportunities, personal choices, or even neonatal environmental pollutant exposure? Do we have any real evidence that intelligence differences within the species are something that can truly be selected for? Hell, what kind of intelligence are we talking about? Scholastic ability, emotional intelligence, executive reasoning, etc? There are many types of intelligence. And the very idea that the poor and those of lower educational attainment are of genetically lower intelligence is a key eugenics theme.

Yes, Idiocracy never comes right out and explicitly endorses eugenics. But the implications and themes are undeniably pro-eugenics.

Read a damn stats book. Jesus Wept! This could literally be a question on a sophomore-level undergrad stats class, and you would fail that question.