Raptorpat

And as jingai was fond of saying, impeachment is political. Which means the only way to punish a president requires them to lose support within their own party. If they have the support of their own voters/politicians then there's nothing.

lol https://x.com/atrupar/status/1808227499756683693

shopping caaaaaaaart

happy birthday @Sieg67!

She has like a 70% approval rating among Black voters (aka Democrats' most important constituency). If she gets passed over by a white guy or exchanged for another Black woman in the #2 slot after spending four years breaking ties in the Senate, it will not work out. It's effectively an open admission that a. there is a glass ceiling, and b. she was pure window dressing for their votes.

Even if Biden dropped out they cannot pass over Kamala for a white guy.

I think the religion-imposing is just their general agenda. The veepstakes is more characterized by the blatant sycophants. Probably Vance or Stefanik.

the caffeine kicked in today, watch this clip of the quote from that article

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/biden-campaign-rally-2024-debate-00165799

when is someone going to remind him of the time he tried to talk tough at the UN and the general assembly literally laughed at him to his face

omfg trump was just absolutely saved by the commercial break with the election denial stuff, Biden got him to just about go off the handle and the commercial was called

It's a shame that the opening three minutes make 90% of the impressions. SCOTUS is going to blow up a lot of shit tomorrow so that might take over the news cycle.

Generative AI is coming whether we want it or not, so legislatures should be focusing on protecting the rights of the people it can displace and consumer awareness protections for those at home.

From what I saw/heard, the case isn't really ruling on the constitutionality of it. The lower court said that emergency abortions could continue in Idaho while the litigation over its extreme ban proceeds, and the anti-abortion side challenged that temporary decision. SCOTUS said that the lower court's decision remains in effect while the litigation proceeds.

utah gonna utah

looks like the anti-boebert vote split four ways and she won with a plurality

yeah i hadn't heard of this guy until ramo started sharing articles assuming i knew who that is guy seems like total dogshit though

The current forgiveness plan is just to waive accrued interest so that loan holders' future payments can actually apply to principal. It's not even a forgiveness of the actual loan. The whole issue, at least from my perspective/experience, is that graduates accrue an interest backlog while their income ramps up so that once they make a sufficient amount to pay a meaningful amount beyond the minimum they're already stuck in the hole despite having been in full repayment compliance the whole time. It's disgusting how much money I've thrown away to interest while my balance remains flat. It's pure spite.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/24/courts-block-biden-student-loan-repayment-plan-00164771

happy birthday @MEXobiologist we miss youuuu

https://x.com/cnn/status/1805365350751506709

yeah they don't make country music like they used to

there was/is something embedded in there and I've been picking at it, the doctor hit it with the freezy spray to blisterize it to force the skin layers up and I made it like two days without picking at it

I had one on my hand that I may have ripped open

The issue in the case asi understand it is that the profits weren't "realized" yet. Our income tax system is largely built around taxing at the point of transaction. To take it out of the realm of investments, think like income/payroll taxes, or even sales taxes, where the tax happens at the point of transaction. So with investments, basically the taxing happens when you cash out the stock, because that's when the profit is considered realized. That's how the true wealthy get out of paying taxes no matter how high the income tax is. They don't have a salary to tax like we do, so it doesn't matter whether the income tax is flat or progressive. They instead own heaps upon heaps of investment assets, and instead of ever selling the assets and "realizing" the profit to trigger a tax, they leverage the assets in other ways for their spending money. The debate that Kavanaugh is tiptoeing around is over the concept of a "wealth tax". In contrast to the other taxes mentioned, a wealth tax is a tax directly on the asset, rather than on a "realized" transaction. So think like taxing someone just for owning $X of stock, rather than the profits derived from selling it. The idea of a wealth tax is an open constitutional question. So basically what Kavanaugh is saying is "we're allowing Trump's repatriation tax which is kind of like a wealth tax because there was no "realization", but it's not really a wealth tax and this decision definitely shouldn't be read as preapproving the Democrats to impose wealth taxes."