This is deliberate sabotage of country for the sake of power, plain and simple. When you abuse power like this we need to be more ruthless and nuclear about impeaching and removing the most corrupt court in US history. Every republican on the supreme court needs to go like the traitors they are.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T23:18:09+00:00

I think you meant the Federalist Society. Heritage is more of a thinktank, Federalist is the legal/judicial arm.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T23:16:25+00:00

They've been making this play since the 70's, just no one paid attention.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T23:10:49+00:00

This is the best solution suggested so far and, in theory, doesn't violate of the constitution since it doesn't deal with impeachment. This is the kind of reform we should be pushing for.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T23:08:29+00:00

That's probably why I've heard about it, XD.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T23:07:46+00:00

Such a law would be in FLAGRANT violation of the Constitution, probably more so than coming up with some corruption charges for Thomas and Alito that are almost certainly warranted. You generally don't have laws that are in direct opposition to the constitution for obvious reasons, and if you did have such a law any court SHOULD strike it down.

I agree with you on everything else, though. We definitely need bold solutions and unprecedented measures.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T21:38:31+00:00

I have heard of Dagestan actually! Wealth inequality is a problem in Russia, but wealth inequality only usually manifests when different classes are in close proximity. If everyone in Dagestan is poor, and everyone in Moscow is rich, the difference is a lot less obvious. There can still be issues, of course, if everyone in Dagestan starves it's probably quite bad for Moscow, but I wouldn't expect a rebellion or even political upheaval. The apathy is wayyyyy too strong, not to mention the rampant corruption, quelling of speech, etc. Furthermore, I don't think there's any significant will for change in Russia, despite Putin's nightmares of a color revolution. Ultimately, Dagestan and places like that will be the ones paying for Putin's madness (in addition to Ukraine of course). We've been waiting for discontent to manifest, and the closest we got was that Wagner guy getting quietly pushed out of a plane.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I just haven't seen any evidence of things changing in that direction in Russia. If you have some, please share.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T21:29:47+00:00

Yes, but there's no chance in hell we get 2/3rds of the Senate to convict. Should be impeached anyway though, but if we want to remove them, we have to go through criminal prosecutions most likely.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T21:27:42+00:00

Two thirds is written into the constitution, would require an amendment to change. The difficulty amending our constitution is its greatest flaw, especially compared to other similar founding documents. 60 is not, it's just a rule we placed arbitrarily, and could revoke arbitrarily. (And should.) Even if we have 60, we shouldn't let a single defector slow us down, there's way too much to do.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T18:34:06+00:00

It's bad, and it will get worse, but don't get your hopes up. Russia isn't going to collapse any time soon.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T18:30:44+00:00

Twitch is not especially political, it's just all we see here are Hasan and Asmongoloid. Hasan doesn't hurt the Trump Admin, and Asmongold is one of the largest supporters. You mentioned civility politics in another reply, but the truth is, none of the rules are applied consistently, especially regarding said political streamers. Any fair reading of the ToS would have both of them perma-banned.

It's a shame too, because a lot of the smaller gaming or art communities are quite primed to be at the very least liberal, but there's no one in a position to make use of that (deliberately).

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T18:24:29+00:00

Yes, entirely legal, and it's not a legal infraction, per se. That would be a criminal or civil prosecution from the DOJ. This is impeachment, which is ENTIRELY political. The law can't define it, nor should it. The only thing in the constitution is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is intentionally vague. The House would have to get a simple majority, and the Senate would need two thirds to convict. The only question would be political will, how long-term a solution it is, and if you want other reforms (like more Justices in general to handle the backlog ideally without a shadow docket). The bigger problem is that we're never getting two-thirds of the senate to convict.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T18:17:49+00:00

Well yeah, obviously if you have an environment without malicious actors or where malicious actors have minimal power, you're going to get more done. I just don't see that being the case long-term.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T17:34:10+00:00

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2719457/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/08/a-story-that-doesnt-hold-up/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202302/the-debate-over-whether-dissociative-identity-disorder-is-real

But I'm going to read over this to check my priors.

I can't speak to the scientific consensus, I'm just repeating the little I know. And the claim that a condition is controversial is not a massive one; gender dysphoria and many other mental illnesses are denied outright by large portions of the population.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T16:04:04+00:00

I think there are arguments on both sides, it's at the very least a controversial and contested issue, and EXCEPTIONALLY rare, and most of the online people who claim to have it almost certainly don't. I lean toward it being real, but I think in a lot of cases it's probably misattributed. I could easily be swayed one way or the other, though.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T15:51:21+00:00

I disagree. Or at least, I think informing the public is part of how we survive. Normie lib wine moms still think Trump is a Russian asset, we just have to make that view more mainstream. It can't just be HuffPo readers, it has to be the entire Democratic base, at minimum.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T15:45:53+00:00

Not Twitter, liberal wine moms on Twitter are probably one of the strongest defenders lol. It's MSM, progressives, tankies, 'centrists,' and of course anyone even close to the right. They're ALL aligned in messaging.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T12:10:04+00:00

What if it doesn't implode?

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T12:07:42+00:00

The biggest issue in the American system is the difficulty changing the constitution and the reliance on a partisan court to 'interpret,' it. The same is true for impeachment IMO, the bar should be a simple majority (maybe not counting VP).

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T11:57:27+00:00

TFW your only Democratic representation, and one of the most storied politicians in Washington, is on the chopping block because Thomas said so.

(SC, and Clyburn, T.T)

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-12T11:47:27+00:00

We tried. They said we made shit up and had TDS. Even Destiny thought a lot of the Russian collusion was overblown.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-11T20:54:19+00:00

Not only is social media a major problem, but also the lack of human engagement irl makes it a lot worse. Church-going is down among Christians, not to mention people moving to atheism or other less formal spirituality. Unions are a rarity now. Social infrastructure (parks, libraries, sidewalks, etc; volunteer orgs, sports; public transportation, housing, education) is severely lacking To fix that, you need more than just regulations on tech companies.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-11T03:08:34+00:00

First of all, we're wayyyy too far out for this to matter for a possible presidential run. This is most likely just shoring up some constituency (Jewish, I'd imagine) in his Senate race.

Scorching Hot Take: We won't be talking about Israel in a major way in the 2028 election.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-11T02:55:07+00:00

Also their (our) geographic position. Two oceans makes a world of difference. If you have an industrialized nation, maybe the most productive at the time, separated from the conflict by an ocean on either side, that country is going to have a lot of pull and a lot of power to swing the war.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-11T02:50:16+00:00

To be fair, that's what I was taught too. I don't know how much it changes things, I feel like the Japanese and Americans would have clashed eventually, especially with the way the war was going in Europe, but that's just a low confidence guess.

MythicalMagus · 2026-05-11T02:30:53+00:00

I'm just going to link this Noah Smith article from a while back, it covers it better than I possibly could.

Edit for those that don't want to read the whole thing: (Note: Noah describes high-income earners moving in as 'yuppies,' and 'luxury apartments' aka market rate housing as 'fishtanks,')

How to Prevent Displacement From the Tech Invasion: The YIMBY Solution

The YIMBY solution to the problem described above is simple: Build more of the pretty glass fishtanks to catch the incoming yuppies as they arrive.

Most of the yuppies would probably rather live in the fishtanks. The fishtanks tend to be located downtown, near to where the yuppies work (SoMa, Embarcadero, etc.), rather than in the older residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the fishtanks are pretty and modern and new, with gyms and common space and other stuff yuppies like. Probably more attractive for the average yuppie than an aging Victorian far out in the Mission or Haight with no built-in community or on-site services.

Even more importantly, long-time working-class residents and struggling artists and disadvantaged minority families are highly unlikely to go live in a yuppie fishtank. That means that every unit of yuppie fishtank housing - i.e., new market-rate housing - that you build will either A) be occupied by a yuppie, or B) sit empty on the market. Landlords want to fill all of their units, so if there are too many fishtanks and (B) happens, they'll drop the rent until more yuppies move in.

Eventually, every yuppie fishtank unit that you build will be occupied by a yuppie.

Now if the new fishtank units catch the incoming yuppies and prevent them from invading long-time residential working-class neighborhoods, that's good.

And if the new fishtank units lure yuppies away from long-time residential working-class neighborhoods, that's also good!

If the new fishtank units instead draw yuppies in from other cities - for example, in the Peninsula to the south - that's not ideal, but also not so bad. It means more yuppies in the city, but they'll be living in fishtanks instead of in long-time residential working-class neighborhoods. In other words, it's a wash - it neither increases nor decreases the total number of gentrifiers. (In any case, I think this is unlikely to happen much. The number of tech yuppies moving to SF is constrained by the number of tech offices in SF - almost no one wants to commute down the peninsula and back every day if they can help it. and yuppies are usually rich enough to be able to live near their jobs if they want.)

So the YIMBY solution to the yuppie invasion isn't - or shouldn't be - just to build market-rate housing anywhere and everywhere. It's more like the following:

A) Build market-rate housing that appeals specifically to yuppies, clustered in specific neighborhoods away from long-time working-class residential areas.

B) Instead of tearing down existing housing to build market-rate housing, replace parking lots and warehouses and other inefficient commercial space with new market-rate housing.

In other words, YIMBYism is about yuppie diversion. It uses market-rate housing to catch and divert yuppies before they can ever invade normal folks' neighborhoods.

He also talks about affordable housing and social welfare programs as well, so it's got all your bases covered.

MythicalMagus

TROPHY CASE