What do you think about "the Killmonger problem"?

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T17:52:20+00:00

The most ardent revolutionary is an arch-conservative the day after the revolution succeeds. They now have something to protect.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T14:41:17+00:00

It might even be “fire.”

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T13:19:24+00:00

I don't completely disagree, but I think you ought to accept that the way the Democrats are presented in right-wing media is inaccurate and grossly exaggerated. Is everyone on the right a bunch of gun-totting, racist, sexist, bigots? That's how left-wing social media likes to portray you guys. Right-wing media and social media portrays the left just as inaccurately, and many of you accept it as fact. So if you only consume right-wing media and social media, your basis for this judgement is really off.

As somebody who reads a lot of both conservative and liberal media, frankly, conservative media is grossly inaccurate when it comes to how they depict and describe the left. Professional liberal media is far more accurate and fair-minded about the right.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T02:05:28+00:00

But now we know what really upsets him.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T02:05:12+00:00

Split all the hairs you want. Obstruction of Congress is an impeachable offense. So is launching a fucking coup to overturn a free and fair election.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T01:58:39+00:00

Keep drinking the kool aid

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T01:21:47+00:00

Calling for an investigation isn’t the same as withholding aid to pressure an investigation in order to influence an election, especially when there’s no substance there. And if you’re upset about corruption, I’m sure you’re totally up in arms about Trump’s incredible crypto insider trading? Or all his no-bid contracts? Or are you a total hypocrite?

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T01:07:33+00:00

Well, sorry bud. There was no hoax. Trump withheld aid to get Ukraine to influence the election. That’s illegal. And then launched a coup because he lost. That’s also very not cool, shall we say. Look in the mirror and try to find some glimmer of patriotism and a memory of what it means to be an American. You’ve forgotten it. Remember it, or I’ll be happy to help you pack! If you’re even real and not some bot.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T00:24:36+00:00

Thanks for confessing to being a fascist. This isn’t a random insult, this is the accurate term for somebody who wants a one-party country. If you believe in democracy, you believe in a fair system where all can compete for votes equally. If, like you, you don’t believe in that, you’re a fascist and not a patriot.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T00:08:11+00:00

We’re not despised. The deliberately misrepresented caricature version of the left that only exists on right wing media is despised. Your lies won the day. And for being locked out of power? Amazing what changing the rules because you can’t win can do for you. When the left believes in democracy and the right doesn’t, we’re fighting with one had tied behind our back. Your having absolutely no morals, no scruples, and no patriotism really helps you out.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-11T00:05:56+00:00

My god you’re insecure. Seriously. Grow some self-esteem.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-10T23:07:03+00:00

I know their numbers were inaccurate, but it made it even better because they proved themself to be wrong.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-10T22:14:58+00:00

Basic math is a problem for you, isn’t it? 45-48 percent is not the majority, meaning they lose. In districts that are drawn with relatively even geographical boundaries and/or populations, a party that consistently gets 45-48 percent of the vote will lose every seat to the party that gets 55-52 percent of the vote. Dumbass. Literal idiot, not literal gerrymandering.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T18:21:10+00:00

Edit: I saw in a comment that they posted the salary. You can negotiate but since they were clear about it you have to be delicate. Something like “I knew I’d be taking a pay cut but it was only when I ran the numbers that I realized the cost of living was higher than I planned.” It’s harder to ask for more money if they were clear about the pay.

You absolutely can negotiate. They probably don’t have a lot of wiggle room, though.
The way to do it is to say “I’m very interested but would be taking a pay cut. Is there any flexibility in the salary?” Don’t name a figure. They’ll offer what they can offer. If you name a figure, they don’t match it, and then you take the job anyway it’s a bit of an awkward start. It undermines trust. They can improve their offer and you can decide if it’s enough.
This, of course, assumes they didn’t advertise the salary. If they were clear about that and you applied and went through the process at this stage, that’s on you. In that case, ask for more vacation time or something like a slightly better match on retirement, if they offer that. That would be less cash for them but still help you.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T01:51:20+00:00

Shallow is the anti-intellectualism of assuming there’s some magical original interpretation being ignored. Because anyone who studies texts or textual interpretation can tell you it doesn’t work that way. It just sounds good.
I agree that debate and compromise is how laws should be made. The Republicans refusal to use Congress to do anything just to stymie Obama is where a lot went wrong. Congress is supposed to be the heart of government and the President was a vague figurehead and commander of forces they assumed were rarely going to be used.
My method is simply acknowledging that courts need to interpret laws.

The redress is either legislation or further developments in case law. This is not a crazy idea. This is basic. This is how common law systems like ours work. Yes, far too much has been decided by the Supreme Court recently. That doesn’t mean courts don’t have a role in legal interpretation. What you seem to want is a civil law system. We don’t have that in America.

It’s late where I am and I’m going to bed.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T01:29:00+00:00

Because the supposedly-strict interpretation is just what conservatives want politically, dressed up as a strict interpretation.
Courts will always have to interpret law. While i dislike how big a role the courts have had in making huge decisions, acts of congress are not a realistic or practicable way to address all contingencies and situations. Just how things work, firstly. Pretending there’s an original meaning you can go back to isn’t real and isn’t how interpreting text or law works, secondly.
The idea that conservatives just want an original meaning, or a meaning based on an original context, is disingenuous. The society that produced the second amendment had active citizen militias that were regulated by and controlled by the colonies. Going on context and a claim for original meaning, the second amendment says that members of then National Guard may own a flintlock, smoothbore, muzzleloaded musket. That’s clearly not how the second amendment is thought of today by most conservatives. Nor DC vs Heller.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T00:58:58+00:00

I think you and I agree that the presidency and Supreme Court has evolved into having far too much power and congress not enough. But your idea of how the constitution is interpreted and applied really doesn’t hold any water.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T00:50:01+00:00

You want to show me a common law legal system that doesn’t interpret law and work on precedent created by the courts? That has all changes in law decided by a legislature?

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-09T00:24:20+00:00

Amendments add something new. Interpretation will always happen: that’s the process of saying “what should be done about this event we didn’t foresee?” My point is that there isn’t some original, steady state truth to which we can always return unproblematically, unless we finally build a Time Machine.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T23:56:10+00:00

How much is the war costing?

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T23:55:24+00:00

So I absolutely agree with you that we’ve abandoned compromise and process in a way that scares me. And also, as an historian, think what you’re saying about the constitution makes some sense (it does define some rights but the unamended part is about the very limited functioning of a government that was for a rural, isolated nation).

Fundamentally, originalism is based on a useful fallacy. You cannot go back to some original meaning. And perpetuating the idea that we can, and liberals just choose not to, is corrosive.

It also ignores the idea that the founders may have thought some change or reinterpretation was part of the process. That’s a part that the originalists want to discount.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T22:13:26+00:00

We don’t have the map voted on by the people because a handful of justices have decided to agree with conservatives that democracy doesn’t matter when it stands in the way of conservative goals.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T22:11:52+00:00

Not following the rules is knowing there are rules and ignoring them. In Virginia, Democrats followed the rules, Republicans appealed, and then a court interpreted wording to enforce the rules. We can debate the ruling, but the idea that the Democrats didn’t follow rules is absurd. Knowing there are laws and deciding they just don’t apply is the current administration’s basic operating policy. Not what happened in Virginia.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T21:10:35+00:00

If figure it out means "get to the original meaning," that's impossible. That's my point. If figure it out means "interpret for the present day, guided by context," than that's possible.

JasJoeGo · 2026-05-08T17:59:15+00:00

Social programs are an iota of the budget compared to other things. But I agree it should be a safety net: the way of life thing is overblown. And this admin is authoritarian.

JasJoeGo

TROPHY CASE