

There’s a primary for his now vacant seat this Saturday if anyone here is in that district (VA-11) and wants to avoid a repeat. Special election is in September
There are some progressives running in that primary
There’s a primary for his now vacant seat this Saturday if anyone here is in that district (VA-11) and wants to avoid a repeat. Special election is in September
There are some progressives running in that primary
Vote in every primary. The establishment can’t fight as hard as they did for Cuomo everywhere. There are lot of primaries across the country that many people don’t even know are happening
For instance, there’s one for the US House seat in VA-11 (Most of Fairfax county + Fairfax City) this Saturday prior to the September special election to replace Gerry Connolly who died from cancer
This isn’t the first large nationwide protest of his second term and it won’t be the last. For instance, the Hands Off ones in April were number 6 on that list. They’re getting larger and there is already planning for the next nationwide ones. Or more broadly, here’s the cumulative number of protests including smaller ones too
There were over 2000 protest locations alone. Thousands would mean that an average of 1-5 people showed up at each location which you can find plenty, plenty, plenty of photos to prove otherwise. For instance, you can find places with hundreds turning out in deep red small towns
One group’s estimate is least 11 million, which is at the 3.5% figure and they are still counting! Been rising hourly by millions as they continue to count the thousands of protest locations
The 3.5% is not necessarily the full iron clad guarantee it’s touted as, but the high turnout is encouraging. Keep the pressure up!
Yes, there is no update on their website’s newsroom press releases is what I am saying. Last one was posted online a day before they tweeted this one
They did not post on their newsroom or anything yet as far as I could find, just their official social media accounts
LAPD posted a screenshot of the text originally. See the link in the body https://xcancel.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931538326600995262#m
It’s not as much about each specific thing as much as is about the overarching story. That Trump was at a UFC event and stayed while calling the national guard, that he didn’t call them in on Jan 6th, that the LAPD called the protests mostly peaceful, etc.
People need motivation to act on their convictions. Visible push back from others is hugely important to seeing it as more unjustified and that they can refuse unlawful orders
It’s also a spectrum. Vaguely feeling that something is probably wrong vs seeing stories about how it’s wrong are different
Public opinion matters a lot in this movement - not because Noem will care - but because it influences how the members themselves of the national guard respond. If the nation guard members think it is unjustified, they are more likely to not follow any unlawful orders
Yes the charges are stupid, but they are primarily to make it so that Trump’s fold doesn’t look like a fold. This is a win that he is out from El Salvador and puts further pressure to bring back all the others in a similar situation
They’re continually paying El Salvador for this on an ongoing basis per Chris Van Hollen. To a place they could easily withhold funding if they wanted to until he was sent back
US Senator Van Hallen (from Maryland) flew down to El Salvador managed to see him after applying a bunch of pressure in mid April. So he was at least alive then. Photos were published and such of said meeting
Other dems from congress have flow down besides Van Hallen, but haven’t been able to get a visit. They’ve also had a ton less media attention, so there was less pressure on El Salvador to let them visit him. For instance, Glenn Ivey traveled to El Salvador and tried to visit a week ago but I doubt most people here probably heard about that
This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used
This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here
Unfortunately this is far from a US only thing. It is worse in the US, but it’s still everywhere. Factory farming is rather high globally, including Canada where I’m going to assume you are from based on your instance
It’s estimated that three-quarters – 74% – of land livestock are factory-farmed. That means that at any given time, around 23 billion animals are on these farms.
[…]
Combine land animals and fish, and the final estimate comes to 94% of livestock living on factory farms
https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed
It is a pervasive myth, supported by misleading industry advertising, that Canada does not have factory farms. Canada does, in fact, have factory farms, with the average chicken farm housing as many as 36,000 chickens.
https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/canada-chicken-farming-2024/
Like many Republican lead US-states, various conservative lead Canadian provinces have also tried put Ag-gag laws in place to limit filming of factory farms
That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn’t be morally relvent
Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify
This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter
If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions
Not the person you are replying to, but that’s not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species
Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn’t morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens
It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It’s not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It’s about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered
Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.
Since you asked that made me actually reverse image search it to double check it was originally where I thought it was from. It was not, and now I am not sure where exactly it’s originally from. The oldest version I found was from a blog from 2008, but on that post the file metadata says the photo was from May 11th, 2004
If the filibuster is removed, it is also possible to get through with 50+VP as tie breaker or 51. The filibuster being removed is not as unlikely as you may think since Republicans right now are getting closer and closer towards defacto removing the filibuster. There currently are narrow ways around the filibuster (reconsideration is one big one) that are supposed to have a bunch of limitations, but they are testing the waters in ignoring violations of those limitations. The senate parliamentarian is the one who makes rulings about if something violates their clauses, but their opinion can be ignored by a strict majority via the “nuclear option”
A month ago, Republicans used the nuclear option to ignore the senate parliamentarian ruling that the Congressional Review Act would not allow them to skip the filibuster to remove California’s EPA waivers (see here).
As I write this Republicans are currently trying to play another different a different trick about some of the stuff in the Big Beautiful Bill. Dems have been challenging a bunch of provisions and getting the parliamentarian to most of the time rule they are in violation of the Byrd rule. But they are also trying to challenge the whole bill as violating the Byrd rule’s limit that a bill passed via reconsecration cannot increase the deficit over a ten-year period. Republicans are playing an accounting trick to claim it doesn’t. They know the parliamentarian is unlikely to agree with them, so they are currently trying to prevent dems from even being able to ask the parliamentarian about it