Rent seeking on housings is revolting. I wouldn’t call myself hardcore communist but damn how I wish housing is not something someone can make rent(as in economics) off of.
One morning you’ll wake up and every bone in your body will pop simultaneously. Then while you lay there aching you’ll let out a 6 mimutes and 20 second fart that doesn’t have a happy ending.
It seems, though, that the molecular changes you are undergoing do not immediately translate into increased mortality, so you’re going to have several more years of - presumably - feeling well until the big drop-off starts for all of us at about 60.
BTW, because of its wide range of topics, its solid scientific underpinnings and its excellent intellectual accessibility, this is one of two books I positively think should be taught at any school, the other one being Solé’s “Phase Transitions.”
I am not American, so my opinion doesn’t matter anyway, but if I were, then Harris would probably be the first time I would be voting for a major party candidate. She has her flaws too I am sure, but no one better seems to be running this time.
Bleeping Computer - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Bleeping Computer:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CBS News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NPR:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
The article says the state supreme court ruled it violated the state constitution. SCOTUS has no business interpreting state constitutions, only the federal constitution.
I think the federal constitution supersedes state constitutions, though.
Ah - it does! I had to look it up. It’s called the Supremacy Clause (Wikipedia). It’s not uniformly applied because many states aren’t going to bother with enforcing federal laws they disagree with. (States with legal weed, for instance.) But the federal government does have the right to poke holes in state constitutions if they deem it necessary and want to.
Edit: While I could still see SCOTUS being malevolent using a thin pretext, it appears this case cannot be taken by SCOTUS, because (as far as I can tell), it doesn’t meet the requirements for SCOTUS to take it.
I could see SCOTUS taking the case, ruling horribly, the rest of the federal government not taking up enforcement, but Montana lawmakers running amok with their newfound ability to step on desperate teenagers, because SCOTUS said they could.
Yeah but state constitutions can grant additional rights (versus state law and state institutions) in addition to those guaranteed by the federal constitution. That is what is going on here to my understanding, hard for SCOTUS to rule that the state constitution cannot do that.
That’s a valid point for ‘normal’ times. But I don’t think these are normal times. I also don’t think the SCOTUS would approach their rulings in a manner that respects anything other than the agenda of the majority. I earnestly believe that they would dispense with any sort of legal precedent or sense of decorum to enforce their will.
A fine reasoning, if that were in any way the discussion at hand.
The legality or illegality of abortion is immaterial here. The case in question is about privacy, but specifically we’re talking about whether the Federal government can interpret the Montana state constitution (they can).
My “I could see…” was a reference to a reinterpretation of laws/precedent/whatever by the SCOTUS to overrule the state Supreme Court decision. We’ve seen a number of questionable rulings from this SCOTUS, and I would not doubt they would find any justification to legislate from the bench on what seems to be a pet cause of the majority.
SCOTUS doesn’t interpret the state constitution. The state courts do that. SCOTUS then takes the state interpretation as fact and judges if it violates the supremacy clause of the US constitution.
Ah, you’re right. I did a bit more digging, and in it appears that unless the case involved contradictory interpretations of the state vs U.S. constitution at each level of it’s trial progression, the case cannot be appealed to SCOTUS.
My supposition at the end of my previous comment wouldn’t come to fruition - at least not as the result of an appeal to this case.
I’ll amend my comment.
If SCOTUS did that without a direct conflict in the state and federal documents then they would be ruling that state constitutions and courts are now moot.
I wouldn’t put it past them to pull something like that, but the bit about conflict between the constitutions (plus another commenter’s input) caused me to question on what grounds a case can be appealed from a state Supreme Court to SCOTUS, and it looks like there isn’t a path for that here.
SCOTUS still can overrule a state constitution, but they can’t pick up this case, as far as I can tell. There just doesn’t seem to be a path that leads to them. I’ll amend my comment.
The Supremacy Clause won’t apply in this case. Repealing Roe means the federal government doesn’t protect medical privacy in the case of abortions. It doesn’t mean they restrict it.
I was editing my comment as you were typing yours. But - yeah.
The supremacy clause wouldn’t even have the chance to be applied, because the case wouldn’t ever leave the state.
Purely hypothetically now, I was not so much thinking of Roe or the reasons used to undo that decision being applied here, but just any spurious legal justification they could come up with.
Well, this was the state supreme Court, so to do that a federally ruling would have to have pretty broad implications, like “states cannot legally guarantee a right to privacy to their citizens” and would be pretty contentious
The Montana State constitution has a guaranteed right to privacy, which is what Row v Wade used to guarantee abortion access. It would take a Montana constitutional amendment to change it in Montana. Scotus has no authority over the matter.
Right wing randos from the middle of nowhere, I get why they get pulled down the rabbit hole.
Elon Musk, is a hyper online nerd and he is constantly surrounded by yes men. I get why he got pulled down the rabbit hole.
Donald Trump is a Fox News grandpa who surrounds himself with the hard right because they support him unconditionally. I get why he got pulled down the rabbit hole.
But JD Vance is arguably the furthest down the rabbit hole of all of them, and I don’t get why.
Theoretically he’s the senator for a whole state who voted for Obama twice. His day job is in the Democrat-controlled Senate, if he wants to get anything done he needs to work with Democrats. How is he such a true believer in this stuff?!?
Vance used to be more of a center left guy until he got into politics to grift his way to VP. Read anything about him and you can easily see who he is pandering to.
I wouldn’t even go so far as to say it’s that they “like” Harris.
She seems good. And Walz was a truly inspired pick for running mate in the current political climate of the United States. But I think a LOT of this excitement comes from just not being old as fuck.
The size and immediacy of the reaction to her candidacy tells me that there’s a sense of almost cathartic relief that there’s actually someone in the game that can actually still function AS the president. I’m sure Harris and her personality have something to do with it as well; but at least some of the “wave” as they call it, would have existed for literally anyone on the ticket who could dress themselves compared to the two old geezers they had to choose from before.
This is just my take as a Canadian watching, suddenly interested, from the North.
Also, the difference between the tone of the speechea between Harris and Trump are like day and night. Where Trump continues to throw dirt and spew so much negativity, Harris sounds like someone who steps beyond the dirt throwing and really comes with a vision and ideas how to govern the country.
Well, my 2cts from someone on the other end of the Atlantic 😀
NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NPR:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Among the plans from the Harris campaign is a federal ban on price-gouging in the industries. Most states currently have such bans in place.
O…kay.
Harris will single out meat prices, and in particular the meat-processing industry. Her first 100 days will also see support for small businesses, a “crack down on unfair mergers and acquisitions” among food corporations.
Bird flu and swine flu are two of the biggest pressure points on agricultural supply. Heat and drought are also doing horrible things to cattle stock. Will her support for small businesses address this? Guess we’ll have to tune in next week to find out.
Harris no longer supports measures from her short-lived 2020 presidential bid such as a fracking ban or Medicare for All, advisers told Reuters.
sigh
Her campaign said it wanted to avoid dividing voters and attracting attacks from business groups over granular details
mega-sigh
She will push plans to cut costs of rental housing and home ownership, including funding more affordable housing and building climate resistant communities.
Sounds nice. Wonder what the details will look like.
“She does have a focus on housing because we know and she knows very, very clearly that housing is a crisis in this country,” said Marcia Fudge, a Harris adviser and the former housing and urban development secretary under Biden.
I’m curious to know what Harris stands for and this article doesn’t seem to offer much.
This country really needs Project 2025, doesn’t it?
Project 2025 seems bad and I wouldn’t suggest voting for a guy like Vance or Trump, given his support of it. But Harris’s response appears to be to just not talk about policy and campaign without upsetting anybody.
They’re decided by an electoral college selected by the party. We’ve seen state governments assert the right of the state legislature to usurp the popular vote by citing Rehnquist’s decision in Bush v Gore. And while you’d like to think this remains a decision in popular hands, Idk how current composition of the SCOTUS will respond if presented with an opportunity to overturn another general election victory by the Democrats.
Who wins when not enough people per state vote for Harris?
In theory, its the Big Scary Cheeto (or, assuming another Demolition Ranch subscriber gets within 400 feet of the former Prez, JD “Couchfucker” Vance).
But if all you care about is Not-Trump, why are you in a thread talking about Harris’s policy? Why take offense at anyone asking? You know who you’re voting for, regardless of what she says, so why are you in here pretending that you care?
I am not pretending that I care that people don’t vote for Harris.
Then you think you’d care about the nine people who will ultimately decide this election. You’d think that would lead to more calls of “Pack the Court”, “Fight illegal felony disenfranchisement laws”, and “Support universal mail-in voting”, rather than “Fuck you for asking what anyone supports”.
Instead, I’m seeing someone who is willing to waltz blindly into another Bush v Gore SCOTUS sponsored upset while screaming “Fascist!” at the Naderites.
Why don’t you care about that?
The difference between caring about this election and caring about democracy is in wanting your team to win this round and wanting general participation in democratic institutions after November.
They don’t seem to matter under Biden, when Abbott is doing them.
Does Harris indicate she’ll crack down on Abbott’s state goons or rein in the DHS officials that have sided with him? Or is she going to continue turning a blind eye?
And possibly because it’ll upset the victims of the private industry. MFA is the only solution to the American healthcare crisis. They’ve already sold off parts of Medicare. We need to kill the private health insurance industry or it will keep trying to get us back here
I’ve read them all.
They complain about policy more, explain the election system, and complain about Netenyahoo jerking us around. None of which suggests to not vote for Harris.
I think you are deliberately refusing to see something that pretty much everyone else here can see just because he isn’t literally saying “don’t vote for Harris.”
But sure, maybe he’s saying not to vote at all. Which is basically the same thing.
Close.
I’m deliberately refusing to infer something that isn’t implied. I’m refusing to try to mind-read someone I don’t know. I’m deliberately accepting their statements at face value, because I don’t know them.
It’s how I would hope people read what I write.
And how I believe we can have more productive interactions online.
Well I do know them. I’ve seen them post here for a long time. I’ve also seen them switch almost immediately from “don’t vote for Biden” to “don’t vote for Harris.”
If what you’ve argued about their statements today, is indicative of your interpretation of their statements then… I hope you’ll understand and forgive my doubts.
As a leftist I was critical of Biden and continued to be critical of Harris, despite hating Trump even moreso.
It’s not suspicious, it’s consistent based on our ideology.
As I’ve said elsewhere I’m an expat not a resident, so I mostly vote here in Canada, and I don’t really like any of my 3 main options right now. I’ll strategically vote to keep the Conservatives out, but that doesn’t mean I like the Liberals and I’m comfortable criticising Trudeau.
As someone who is terminally on Lemmy you should do more to build a better culture of charitable interpretation of what people are saying instead of trying to fucking gestapo-up alleged Trump supporters and silence any criticism of your preferred candidate.
To me it seems like they’re criticising her from the left and that’s valid criticism. I didn’t run a background check on them so maybe they aren’t. Maybe they won’t even vote.
I’m not going to bully them until they leave, though.
This community is extremely toxic. It’s no different than the politics subreddit.
Ok fair you’re not the worst of them but you’re contributing to the toxicity at least somewhat. There’re worse examples actively harassing me and I took some of that out on you.
You gotta realize, America isn’t a new iPhone release with chamfered edges. We’re trying to save America from Fascism. That the campaign is also doing things on top of that is just great. They’ve already probably accomplished much more in the last 4 years than you realized, not even counting the fact that they had to undo the clusterfuck that DonOld the Orange Bloat left behind where departments had no people, no records, nothing.
Example of what you should expect in the future based on the last 4 years (as summarized by ChatGPT):
Created over 12 million jobs, including 6.6 million in the first year—more than any other president in U.S. history.
Passed the American Rescue Plan, providing direct relief to Americans and supporting economic recovery post-pandemic.
Achieved record investments in U.S. manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act, fostering innovation and reducing dependence on foreign semiconductors.
Implemented the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in clean energy and climate action in U.S. history.
Healthcare and Social Policies:
Expanded healthcare access and reduced premiums under the Affordable Care Act, saving Americans $800 per year on average.
Passed the PACT Act to address health impacts on veterans exposed to toxins.
Provided historic student debt relief, including forgiveness of up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
Infrastructure and Environmental Initiatives:
Passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, allocating $1.2 trillion to improve roads, bridges, public transit, and broadband across the country.
Committed to ambitious climate goals, aiming for a 50-52% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Social Justice and Civil Rights:
Protected marriage equality for LGBTQI+ and interracial couples through bipartisan legislation.
Reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act and implemented measures to reduce police violence, including banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants at the federal level.
Successfully nominated and confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Foreign Policy and National Security:
Rallied international support for Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion, strengthening NATO and facilitating the addition of Finland and Sweden to the alliance.
Led successful counterterrorism operations, eliminating key leaders of ISIS and Al Qaeda without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.
Economic and Trade Policies:
Navigated the U.S. economy through high inflation and interest rate challenges, maintaining economic growth with a 2.5% GDP increase in 2023.
Introduced a new approach to globalization, balancing trade with industrial policies to boost U.S. manufacturing and secure jobs.
Departmental and Agency Accomplishments
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Safety Regulations: Implemented several final rules to improve transportation safety, including:
Requiring railroads to provide real-time information to emergency personnel about hazardous material shipments.
Introducing rules to enhance rail safety by mandating adequate training and certification for train dispatchers and signal employees.
Mandating automatic emergency braking systems in passenger cars and light trucks to reduce accidents.
Consumer Protections: Expanded airline passenger rights, requiring airlines to provide automatic cash refunds for canceled or significantly changed flights, and imposed penalties on airlines for consumer protection violations.
Infrastructure Investments: Funded nearly 3,000 low- and zero-emission transit buses and over 5,000 clean school buses as part of efforts to modernize the transportation system.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Broadband Expansion: Expanded broadband access across the U.S., focusing on underserved and rural areas.
Combatting Robocalls: Intensified efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls, implementing stricter rules and encouraging carriers to adopt call authentication technology.
Net Neutrality and Digital Equity: Worked on restoring net neutrality protections and advancing digital equity initiatives.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Consumer Protection: Focused on protecting consumers from deceptive practices, particularly in online marketplaces and digital platforms.
Antitrust Enforcement: Increased antitrust efforts, particularly in the tech industry, to challenge mergers and practices that could harm competition.
Subscription Services: Launched initiatives to make it easier for consumers to unsubscribe from unwanted memberships and recurring payments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Combatting PFAS Pollution: Launched a comprehensive PFAS Roadmap to research, restrict, and remediate harmful PFAS chemicals in the environment.
Climate Action: Took significant steps to reduce methane emissions through the Super Emitter Program, which monitors large methane leaks and requires operators to address them.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Consumer Relief: Enforcement actions since 2021 resulted in approximately $19 billion in relief for consumers, impacting around 195 million people.
Fair Lending Practices: Referred a record number of fair lending matters to the Department of Justice for enforcement.
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
Worker Protections: Actively protected workers’ rights, including reversing Trump-era policies that limited workers’ ability to organize and collectively bargain.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
Financial Stability: Strengthened regulations to ensure financial stability and consumer protection, including stricter oversight of financial institutions.
Department of Energy (DOE)
Infrastructure Investments: Key player in modernizing U.S. energy infrastructure, including investments in clean energy technologies and grid modernization.
Carbon Capture and Storage: Advanced carbon capture and storage technologies through initiatives like the Carbon Negative Shot.
Energy Equity: Emphasized ensuring that the benefits of clean energy reach underserved communities.
Department of Education
Student Debt Forgiveness: Implemented historic student debt relief, including cancellation of up to $20,000 in federal student loans for Pell Grant recipients.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness: Overhauled the PSLF program to make it easier for borrowers to qualify for loan forgiveness.
Pandemic Response: Directed significant funding from the American Rescue Plan to help schools reopen safely and address learning loss.
Equity in Education: Increased funding for schools serving low-income students and strengthened enforcement of civil rights laws in schools.
But you gotta realize, I didn’t mention Biden’s accomplishments. It’s all arguing against something I wasn’t even talking about. So as great as your comment is, it’s kinda misplaced.
I think its more like when you see somebody step on a rake and it hits them in the face. The natural response is to be like “oh no” . Fortunately these are second hand sources and Walz is hopefully on hand to check some of the more lawyer tendencies when dealing with the public.
You didn’t say how any of her plans are going to be bad for America. Why don’t you go to the points you highlife and tell us how they’re going to hurt Americans. Show us you really understand the things you don’t like.
The article says it, has Harris said she isn’t going to do anything about fracking?
And just because she changed some of her views to win battle ground states means you don’t support her anymore and are going to vote for Trump? No candidate is perfect. It she’s so much better than Trump
Oh shut up lmao. I’m voting for the best candidate. I’m not sorry I don’t support a convicted felon. Harris isn’t perfect but she’s so much better than Trump.
You can pick any president in history and nit-pick their policies. What you’re doing is making it seem like she’s a worse option than a convicted felon. And just because I support her doesn’t mean that I’m blindly following her. Stop projecting.
You’re free to criticize anyone you want. I’m criticizing Trump. I’m telling you she isn’t perfect. I’m telling you that I’m booting for the best candidate. Tell me, how am I silencing progressive voices when I am saying she isn’t perfect?
But why don’t you go and tell us who you plan on voting for?
I’m an American expat that hasn’t lived there since I was a baby but if I can figure out how to vote it’ll be for Harris.
You’re silencing voices with your reaction, we can share in our disappointment that she apparently no longer supports Medicare for All and we can share in our disappointment that she apparently softened her climate strategy without accusing each other of being saboteurs and doing the equivalent of asking to see my papers to prove I’m not a Trump supporter.
I asked the person I responded to originally to tell us why he doesn’t like the policies he pointed out. YOU responded with a basic answer instead. You didn’t Say how her policies were going to hurt America.
What’s rabid, psychotic behavior is downplaying Harris to help Trump. You’re acting like no política has ever changed their opinion on a topic. Harris is doing what she needs to do to win those battle states. I understand that no presidential candidate is going to align with all of my political views but I’m on with that. Especially when they’re going up against Trump.
Lmao you’re a clown. You’re acting like you’re being persecuted. I told you multiple times Harris is not perfect. Do you want me to call her a bitch like Trump does? Do you want me to call her dumb like Trump does? Tell me how to properly criticize her because apparently if I don’t criticize her exactly like you do than that means I am a Harris dick rider.
But why don’t you use this space to properly criticize her policies. Don’t just go and say “fracking bad”. Tell us how their policies are going to hurt America and the American people. Name her policies and how exactly they are bad policies.
Yea you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t believe you’re a Harris voter at all. And that’s fine, vote for who ever you want.
I gave you the opportunity to discuss your issues with her policies and you refuse. It seems you’re only interested in talking when you get to spew simple statements, when pushed for details you just run away. That just proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You think I care about your opinion? You dont have the balls to stand for what you believe in. Someone gives you the platform to discuss what bothers you about a candidate and you run away instantly. That’s prettt cowardly in my book.
Yea you’re a weird guy. You come into my conversation with someone else and you get mad when I ask you for further details on the policies you don’t like.
You don’t have integrity. Your parents must be so proud of the person you have become
Nah you’re definitely a weirdo. You butt in to other peoples conversation and then you get mad when people ask you to clarify your statement. You’re just a weird guy. I bet you hear that a lot too.
He hit me with the Democrat forced meme. Since I’m a Republican in disguise, I’m withering away oh nooo. Now I won’t every reply to this guy agaiiiiiiinnn
Isnt this how hillary clinton lost? appealing too much to nobody in particular?
The center is small and fickle in the US. Imo its less they’re turned off by leftist policies (people forget red florida passed higher min wages by initiative) and more they’re turned off by democrats who drag their feet or complicate things unneccessarily or who balk when their corporate donors tighten the leash.
The way to campaign in the US is to distance yourself from parties while sticking to popular policies.
Yeah that “will single out meat prices” got my eyes rolling so hard I might have a knot in my nerves now.
Meat production is one of the main contributors to the climate crisis. We need to produce less of it. I get that campaigning with that message would probably not be popular, but just focussing on groceries would have been enough right?
It’s also just one of those things where people will never be happy. Unless you can get a prime cut porterhouse for a nickel, you’re going to have the ahem meat heads screaming that you’ve failed them. Would love to buy a head of lettuce for under $3, though. Or a bag of onions. We used to practically give away corn and now it’s two ears for $1.
So much basic foodstuff has skyrocketed in price, well before you get to the pork chops and chilean seabass.
Bird flu and swine flu are two of the biggest pressure points on agricultural supply. Heat and drought are also doing horrible things to cattle stock. Will her support for small businesses address this?
Are we pretending that the American meat industry is small business now?
As for housing, the ONLY answer is to remove corporate ownership of single-family dwellings.
Are we pretending that the American meat industry is small business now?
This isn’t a “small business” problem. Firms like Tyson and Smithfield can suffer hundreds of millions in loses in the event of a livestock flu outbreak. Their mega-farms and super-sized slaughterhouses are rife with disease, which is why their animals have to be pumped full of antibiotics and antivirals practically from birth. And that’s before you get into the risk of their ag workers getting infected by a mutant strain and turning the disease into a global pandemic. The so-called Spanish Flu got started on a pig farm just outside a Kansas City military base, before spreading to the front lines in Europe during America’s late entry into WW1.
That’s the kind of enormous tail risks the meat industry is juggling right now. And its a major driver behind inflating pork, chicken, and egg prices.
As for housing, the ONLY answer is to remove corporate ownership of single-family dwellings.
No way Harris does anything even resembling this. The Real Estate Industry would revolt en mass.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.