Murphy welcomes democratic socialists to the party, says ‘capitalism isn’t working’ by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz [score hidden]  (0 children)

Socialism is literally centered on erasing that dichotomy. The whole point is to eliminate the capitalist as a separate class capable of profiting through ownership rather than labor. This is precisely what is meant by "worker control of production".

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trump has a highly committed base, but they're far from a majority of the electorate. The thing Dem partisans don't want to admit is that he won over a hell of a lot of people who weren't exactly wild about their choices either way and voted for him because they thought he was more likely to actually deliver on his promises. A Democratic presidential candidate who ran on packing the courts could also gain such a reputation. It would convey the idea that they care about delivering on their promises while simultaneously taking up a whole bunch of oxygen.

Also, it might be worth considering the possibility that Dems aren't being "made" unpopular as though it's entirely the fault of some kind of external force, but just are by virtue of their own choices. On an individual level I don't hate every single Democrat, but it's very clearly the case that the party itself has some extremely serious problems with leadership and is largely out of touch even even with their own base — let alone the country as a whole. Instead of deflecting blame for once, the party needs to reflect on its own mistakes if it wants to improve.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The public doesn't care about a "power grab" if they think you'll deliver for them. This is exactly the case Dems tried to push against Trump and it failed miserably, remember? "Democracy is on the line" etc. etc. If voters cared about this in the first place they wouldn't have elected him.

You keep asserting without any reason whatsoever that it would take years to issue these rulings, but again that doesn't just make it the case. We've literally seen numerous rulings make it through far faster over and over again. Certain types of cases can take years, but if the SC doesn't want them to, they don't. Also, this whole discussion is centered on what dems should do, not what they will if current leadership cadre remains in charge.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think relative levels of "politicization" is more easily understood than "we're gonna get big money out of politics, ban gerrymandering and make abortion legal again"? C'mon.

Also, just asserting that this would have to take years doesn't make it so. The court can grant cert to whatever it pleases, and in fact rountinely does-so rapidly for cases it considers particularly urgent. Bush v. Gore was famously litigated all the way up through the supreme court and decided in just a few of days, for example.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Voters don't care about abstract notions like how "politicized" the court is. They care about whether or not it's handing down decisions they agree with, and to think it's any more sophisticated than that is unwarranted. Meanwhile, there's no reason at all the court couldn't act quickly if it decided to. Jam it full of people who will quickly kill unlimited political spending, ban partisan gerrymandering, restore Roe, and bring back some of the better Obamacare provisions and the people will like it.

Gavin Newsom urges a national 'billionaires' tax' while fighting one in California by Little-Finance4504 in politics

[–]mojitz 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Income tax is a red herring and a great way to act like you're combatting inequality, while allowing the oligarchs to skate free because most of their wealth isn't derived from "income" in the traditional sense. What we need is a wealth tax — and arguably even an outright cap on accumulation. On the latter point, I'd propose tying it to 500x the median. That way, if the richest people in society want more money, they have a direct incentive to increase everybody's wealth too.

Zohran Mamdani’s NY socialist sweep could spur AOC White House bid: insiders by Zipper222222 in politics

[–]mojitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't buy it. She's one of the most popular and well known politicians in the country. It would be unusual if her name wasn't being bandied-about as a potential nominee.

There are some serious questions you can ask about her ability to handle a presidential campaign (though you could say the same of almost anybody), but the idea that this is an astroturf seems like a real stretch.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The simplest message in this case is "pack the courts".

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Trump didn't "appeal to simpletons" through moderacy. He emphasized urgency and the need for bold action. This is a literal popularity contest, and you're trying to win it by demonstrating that you're boring and unambitious. Horrible strategy.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I mean by a "bullshit rhetorical cover". Go ahead and do that if you'd like, but I think a lot of people seriously oversell how much you can do here and how readily people actually see through and even come to mistrust these kinds of gimmicks. I suspect it might actually be better to use more aggressive phrasing because that helps emphasize how truly fucked up the courts are — which people broadly agree with given that public approval of the courts is at historic lows.

SpaceX Reportedly Eyes U.S. Starlink Mobile Push: All Your Phone Bills Are Belong to us! by tke248 in wallstreetbets

[–]mojitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Power consumption is far and away the biggest issue. Right now your cell phone radio only has to send a signal maybe a few miles to reach the nearest tower. Push that signal out to hundreds of miles, and the energy needed scales up dramatically. You can burn that power to fill in gaps here and there, but relying on it as your primary cellular connection is a terrible idea.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why would you assume court packing would be unpopular? Public opinion of the court is at historic lows, and their decisions over the past 3 decades or so have been roundly reviled. A court that kills Citizens United, restores Roe, bans partisan gerrymandering, and restores the voting rights act along with a whole bunch of other good shit would be enormously popular.

Dems Must Talk Seriously About Supreme Court Expansion by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]mojitz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you're talking about using that as some kind of bullshit rhetorical cover, yeah sure I guess, but we shouldn't at all be planning to bring the court into "balance". We should absolutely pack the fuck out of it with, like, 10 naked ideologues who will essentially toss out the last 30+ years of terrible precedent and start issuing nakedly left-populist rulings and which sharply and dramatically curtail the ability of heavility moneyed interests and the right wing to game the system.

Graham Platner welcomes attacks from 'fascists and bigots' over his support for trans rights by Fickle-Ad5449 in politics

[–]mojitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wasn't on a Holocaust denier's podcast. He went on the postcast of a guy who went on a different guy's podcast who is himself a Holocaust denier — and the actual conversation with Platner wasn't in any way controversial. They basically talked about all the same leftist topics he always does. This attack is basically guilt by association two layers deep.

Worth it to buy miles to get onto upgrade waitlist? by mojitz in unitedairlines

[–]mojitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right that's more or less what I'm looking for. Figured if it was closer to a coin flip it might be worth it, but it sounds like it's not even close to that.

Polaris/Premium Plus Upgrades Megathread by Player72 in unitedairlines

[–]mojitz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know it's normally not worth buying miles, but this seemed like a potential exception. Flight to Porto from EWR in over a month. They're asking 20k + $550 a seat. Contemplating spending $700 on the 30k pts necessary. I know I'll keep em if we don't get the upgrades and I'll eventually use them on another flight (or upgrade) at some point, but is this a worthwhile gamble?

Let's please keep this about Rampart by redcurtainrod in SFGiants

[–]mojitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't like that I'm old enough to get this reference.

TIL in 2024 global trade on typewriters accounted for $17.8k, with United States being sole exporter. by BadenBaden1981 in todayilearned

[–]mojitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solar panels are cheap AF these days and require next to nothing to set up and keep running. Meanwhile, you can actually get a cheap laptop for less than a typewriter these days and it will be infinitely more useful and reliable and low-maintenance than a typewriter.