State of the Discussion

As a general-ish thing, a lot of “conservatives” believe in some sort of “married women are not separate entities from their husbands; the married couple is a single item, represented by the husband, and the wife acting separately from the husband is an exception that needs to be specifically documented.”

So it makes some sort of sense -for them- that there has to be a process for married women registering to vote on her own, as opposed to as part of a couple.

Remember, there’s no one so crazy that will do something that it doesn’t make sense to them.

Be careful out there. I've seen a number of people saying "holy cow, I can't believe the files contain (risible claim)!" and a screenshot of a document without naming it.

I've seen a couple of these where it was a document released back in 2023.

One time I even saw a guy claim "document #(number here) says (risible claim)!" and a screenshot of the document and I went to the website and looked up that specific document and, wouldn't you know it, it was all about Cuba and whatnot and had nothing to do with (risible claim).

So check and double-check.

DavidTC: we’re nearing the point where the government is going to be start held in contempt in multiple places.

And what happens at that point?

If it's not [this specific lawyer will have something bad happen to them] then I'm not hopeful anything will change.

"not only did that take over the Open Mic, but now we have an actual front page article on it."
Write a post of your own, then.

Or maybe just run away and never ever come back here. I promise that we will miss you a whole lot.

Yeah.

I like how this site keeps talking about things that are objectively, factually, incorrect at every possible level. They are wrong about observable reality (Biden had slowed, he was not even vaguely at the level of mentally incompetent), they are wrong about the actual laws (A president merely has to grant pardons, not sign them, and the courts have held that autopen counts as signing anyway) and the actual constitution (It matters not one bit how mentally competent he even was! It doesn't matter if he was asked to pardon and literally didn't understand the question and just nodded! He was the President, and while the president, he could do it!)

And yet, not only did that take over the Open Mic, but now we have an actual front page article on it.

I guess that this is part of it: U.S. Justice Department orders national-security lawyers to review JFK documents

WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is ordering some of its lawyers who handle sensitive national-security matters to urgently review records from the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy that are due to be released on Tuesday, according to an email seen by Reuters.
Christopher Robinson, a National Security Division official, announced that "all" attorneys who work in the Operations Section of the Office of Intelligence are being ordered to review between 400 and 500 documents each, according to a Monday evening email seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

Jam tomorrow.
Jam yesterday.

Part of holding power accountable is documenting what it says.

We are speeding toward 5PM EDT and, still, nothing's come out except for a bunch of humorous tweets showing typewritten letters allegedly from JFK announcing that he has evidence that will result in the arrest of Hillary Clinton.

Maybe it's in the distinction between Biden and Harris?

"Biden had skibidi rizz but Harris was skibidi Ohio so I went with Trump who was bussin fr fr"

Is there a typo or some nuance about polls versus people who showed up to actually vote I am not getting?

I am struggling to understand how voters under 30 could have 'supported Biden by large margins' but 'Trump probably narrowly won 18-29 year-olds.'

This part is interesting:

Young people are more nonwhite than the overall electorate. They’re more politically disengaged than the overall electorate. But the single biggest predictor of swing from 2020 to 2024 is age. Voters under 30 supported Biden by large margins. But Donald Trump probably narrowly won 18- to 29-year-olds. That isn’t what the exit polls say. But if you look at our survey data, voter file data, and precinct-level data, that’s the picture you get.

And if you look at people under the age of 25, every single group — white, nonwhite, male or female — is considerably more conservative than their millennial counterparts. And it even seems that Donald Trump narrowly won nonwhite 18-year-old men, which is not something that has ever happened in Democratic politics before.

How in the heck would one go about turning this around?

How do you turn it around without ticking off The Groups?

JFK Assassination Mania was not the start of paranoid thinking in American politics. It was, though the milepost of that particular kind of brain rot entering mainstream discussion and even some official actions. (At least, since its submergence after the failure of the aptly-named Know-Nothing Party.)

I don't think they are being endlessly held hostage. I don't think they ever were, and to the extent that they were, it was very brief and highly localized.

This feels a lot like the people saying Portland is a war zone in 2020 as though the vast majority of Portland wasn't going about its business as though nothing was happening.

Are we ready to relitigate why Harris lost the election?

David Shor and Vox are... Why Kamala Harris Really Lost

Here are two takeaways to give the Dems some hope (the others? not so much):
• Democrats’ most effective message in 2024 was an economically populist one.
• Donald Trump is leaning into the most unpopular parts of his agenda.

p.s. not sure if the link will work... google took me to msn.com but vox had it locked.