They always choose who takes the heat for unpopular votes based on safety. The only two of the 8 Senators that voted for this whose seat is up in in 2026 are two that are retiring after this term (Durbin and Shaheen). So IL and NH people can vote in 2026 primaries for the most progressive candidate.

The rest don’t come up until '28 or '30 and they expect you to forget by then. But how about if instead, people in their state use that time to find and recruit good progressive candidates to primary them with? Don’t forget their names! Primary them! Your vote counts way more in the primaries because so few turn out for them, so if you skip them, you’re letting other people choose your candidates for you and just keep getting more of the same.

Of those eight seats, only two are up in 2026, and those two Senators (Durbin, Shaheen) are not running for reelection. The others aren’t up until 2028 or 2030. That’s how they do these things. No one up in 2026 would have voted for it.

That just means he found enough Dem Senators to take the heat so he didn’t have to also vote for it. It’s not like he said “Hold the line” and those 8 defied him. No, it was all agreed to between him and them. This is what he wanted. As minority leader the blame is on him in spite of his ‘no’ vote.

WTF. Senate Dems got rewarded in the elections for showing some spine and holding out for healthcare, then as soon as the elections were over, in spite of voters putting them in an even stronger position with the wide margins of victory, what did they do? they fucking caved like the weak little bitches they are.

All the suffering people have been going through during the shutdown has been for absolutely nothing. They didn’t even get a damn one-year extension on subsidies (which BTW are windfalls for insurance companies but until we reform healthcare it’s the best we have for now). It was suppoosed to be not just about the ACA subsidies, but also the Medicaid cuts.

Jeffries wants the House to reject the bill and most House Dems seem to be ready to do that. Keep screaming and contact your rep (politely). There are some repubs also against it, so this shit deal can still be prevented by the House, if the Dems stick together and a few repubs also vote No.

The regime: “We don’t just want to withhold food aid, we want to threaten to withhold it, then give it to them but a week late, but then snatch it right back out of their hands before they get a chance to spend it. That makes the high we get off being cruel that much better!”

I don’t see how it downplays at all how good a candidate he was, if anything it shows how good he must have been to overcome his own party’s elite trying to stop him. My point is that they might have stopped him, if it weren’t for the people who turned out in the primary. Just think what quality candidates we could get if people would support them in the primaries, instead of waiting until the general and seeing who other people chose in the primary and then being disappointed. My point is we need to turn out for the primaries. When potential candidates see voters supporting progressive candidates more will decide to run because they’ll know they have a chance.

When the Democrats do offer an alternative like Mamdani, people show up.

I’d like to rephrase that to make a point: When progressive voters show up and vote in the primaries for the more progressive candidate, there’s more likely to be a more progressive Democratic candidate on the ballot in the general and people will show up for them.

Point is the Democratic Party powers that be did not willingly “offer an alternative like Mamdani”. They hated that he was the candidate and tried to get Cuomo elected instead. Mamdani was only “offered” thanks to the voters who showed up and voted for him in the primary.

This is just one example of why the Christian Nationalists want to do away with the Constitution. Especially that pesky First Amendment with those godless Freedoms of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly! It totally undermines the authority of the Theocracy they are working to establish and so must be abolished!

Once they have the Theocracy in place, the sectarian wars will quickly begin. Which christian sect will prevail? Place your bets!

I read it as Minetest Game.

We could just get rid of Internet 2.0 - that’s when the tech broligarchs took over the beautiful original internet and make it into a bunch of surveillance capitalist walled gardens with psyop addictive algorithms that turned people into ad-consumption cash cows.

Leaving the infrastructure in place for useful, non society-destroying uses would avoid throwing the baby out with the filthy bathwater.

How many people would have recognized that image as a Nazi symbol before thos became news? I wouldn’t have, skull tatoos are common.

That just makes a stronger case against him. It is what it is–a nazi symbol used by the nazis. Not being familiar with it just means you’re an average person who hasn’t learned about all their symbols beyond the infamous swastika. The main people who are most likely to recognize it are either people who are into WWII history or people who are into nazi shit. Among those two groups of people, someone who would actually tattoo it over their heart are in the latter, not the former group, certainly not the average person. He has (finally) admitted he knew what it was.

Sorry, he’s a nazi who only removed his tattoo when it became known about, and lied that he didn’t know what it was. He’s running as a Dem just because that gives him better odds to win in Maine. (edit: And even if he didn’t have the tat his Blackwater history would disqualify him in my book.)

In this case I’d go for the ‘old dinosaur’ since

1. she might die or have to leave early and then you could replace her in a special election

2. She’s neither a repub nor a fucking nazi.

They probably use an AI to go through and add links to key phrases.

I know. I remember because I was a school kid at the time. A couple of kids got hit by a car and it was a big story that kids shouldn’t be walking to school in the dark, so people turned against the idea. Yes it’s true–most kids walked to school back then. :) I think very few do any more, so I doubt that would be such a big point of contention these days.

Also they didn’t change them at the normal time in the fall when people were used to it, they suddenly changed them in the middle of winter so the change from light to dark in the mornings was more dramatic. The problem is that days are just short in the winter and in the northern states even changing the clock back to ST doesn’t magically make it light in the mornings.

I think you’re right that staying on standard time would be a little bit better than staying on daylight time (for that reason), but again I don’t care which one they choose and some of us think the best compromise would be to change the clocks by only half an hour and leave them there.

I dunno, the two of you here are the first ones I’ve seen that have also suggested or like the idea, most people just laugh like it’s a joke.

Maybe try to make a short viral video about the idea to build support?

1. solves all the complaints I’ve heard about which end of the day the daylight is shifted to, because it meets in the middle like you say.

2. There are other countries offset by a half hour so it’s not unreasonable in that regard.

3. It won’t be as hard to adjust to as a full hour and only has to be done one final time.

If States aren’t allowed to change their clock time, they could instead designate that standard work/business and school hours will shift to an hour later during DST (or I guess vice versa if they want to go the other way). That way everyone is still getting up and going to bed at the same actual time, even though it’s at a different clock time.

This is the solution I mention every year, but so far no one has listened. :) It would solve all the complaints from both sides of which one to choose.

I don’t even care which they choose at this point, ST or DT.

Antifa isn’t an organization at all, it’s just an abbreviated version of the adjective ‘anti-fascist’ that people have been using to describe themselves to show they stand against fascism.

I mean, the regime can make up any name they want, designate it or any organization they don’t like as a terrorist organization, then just say that whoever they want to arrest is a member of it.

Part of what’s making it easier for them to do this with ‘antifa’ is that it was probably a mistake to abbreviate ‘fascist’ as ‘fa’ in the first place, which means the average person may not understand what ‘antifa’ actually means. If the full term ‘anti-fascist’ had been used all along, it would be harder for them to say “anti-fascism is bad!” or “the anti-fascists are bad!” Because they’d be saying they’re the opposite of that, i.e., openly calling themselves fascists (which TBH they don’t seem to have a problem with).