Admittedly, I didn't pay very close attention, but isn't this shadow government idea simply opposition-party strategizing? Unless of course they're not supposed to spend official congressional time doing such things...?
And--my letter to the editor of our regional newspaper just got published. A strong contrast, as you may guess, to all the sackcloth and ashes and wailing.
The hilarious thing is my compadre in sentiments is the pastor of a small evangelical church with whom I became email friends after meeting in the opinion columns of the paper before our Plague Era began. He's been man enough to accept I ain't convertible in the spiritual realm and move past the disappointment. He's the only one up here with whom I am able to celebrate the victory...
'One health industry leader, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the appointment, acknowledged they were caught off guard — they had thought Trump would pick former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal or former Surgeon General Jerome Adams — and HADN’T HAD ANY STRATEGIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OPPOSING KENNEDY.'
That phrase I caps-locked: that smacks of incompetence to me.
Off guard? Really? Even after the election that took them off guard? Bunch of losers.
You are squarely in my wheelhouse here, as I've been reading medical- and nutrition-science literature since 2010 when I discovered Gary Taubes. One thing a lot of us have been screaming about for years is the conflict of interest among members of the Dietary Guidelines Committee, which ignores much current research on things like salt and saturated fat. I should go to RFK's online proposal site and recommend Nina Teicholz be appointed to the committee.
In the fields of nutritional and pharma research among others, there are many things that could be implemented to improve the situation fairly quickly. Government funded research should require publication at the end of the study (a lot of research with undesirable outcomes that can't be manipulated never gets published); government funded studies should require full disclosure of all raw data (a lot of it is redacted or not reported, allowing sketchy methodology or analysis to go undetected); government funded studies should be freely available after publication, without the exorbitant paywalls erected by journals; ...that's just off the top of my head.
My Adelle Davis paperback has turned into parchment already. I truly can't remember what set me on this road but I've been reading labels and taking my vitamins and declining to use free samples of things like the Rely tampons since my 20s. It was of course a grief to me to have to stop eating all those red candies that were a considerable part of my childhood diet.
I'd love a side gig as The Multivitamin Fairy who visits every person in their fertile years. I tested the seriousness of the now unhusband's insistence that he was ready to become a father by my own insistence that he quit smoking and take his vitamins for six months before I had my IUD of blessed memory removed.
Such simple steps to prevent so much misery in the world.
This snippet tells me everything I ever needed to know about American food industry:
"The FDA is expected to propose regulation that would require some kind of nutrition labeling before the end of the year. In Trump’s first term, White House officials or Republicans in Congress would likely have quashed it."
Food producers/seller fighting /against/ nutritional data. Here, a product - no matter if it's chewing gum or breath mints or even table salt may not be sold without it. And every single package must carry the data printed and legible, and our FDA has a very handy app for anyone wnating to look up E-numbers or additives or any other ingredient: if the ingredient isn't on record and approved, it can't be in the food at all.
This will be interesting to see how it plays out, from several angles, not the least how internet libertarians will react - will they oppose government demands for nutritional data to be compulsory, and argue "the market" will produce best results, or will they understand that it is in the interests of "the market" to withold information?
The proposal I've seen is a new item on the front like a big green checkmark that says "Healthy". The big problem here is that what the American mainstream and officialdom consider "healthy" is often anything but. This is a direct result of industry pressure on nutrition science, and regulatory capture.
That won't work, both for the reasons you mention and that it will be manipulated and exploited as a sales-arguement, causing more over-eating since it's "healthy" (same idea as with "diet"-sodas).
Here you have to have a full table of content, and stuff like Aspartam needs to be named and the product marked "contains artificial sweeteners", f.e.
On the other hand, in a fit of hilarious oversight, when the basis for the cureent laws and regulations were first made, no-one thought of supplements, such stuff not being en vogue at the time. (Excepting prescription ones of course, those counts as medicines and so follow those laws instead.)
Leading to companies selling supplements meant for dogs (f.e.) called GeroDog - extra vitamins and such for aging dogs - to humans under the name GeroVital, at 300% the price charged for the doggy version. Same contents from the same sources, and as supplements are neither food nor medicinal products, the rules are lax - it is highly likely that all the protein-powder gym-bros & gym-hos gorge on by the shovel-full, comes from carcasses deemed unfit for human consumption or animal food - old race-horses f.e.
It's "been under investigation" since the early 2000s, how to fit supplements of all kinds into the current system without creating loopholes capitalist corporations would use to sell substandard food and candy via.
Hilarious, no?
Olden days, a maker or seller of food that made people sick could be executed for murder.
Oh, we in the US have food labeling that's supposed to contain all ingredients listed in the order of quantity. Of course, industry has found all kinds of ways of circumventing transparency. A good rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the ingredients as food objects, don't eat it.
Since I don't buy or eat any packaged goods anyway, not a problem for me.
Sadly, isn't. The lower the information-level of the customer, the easier the sale. This creates, even without nefarious purposes, a rationality that makes producers/sellers want to withold as much info as they can.
Which is a universal rule for any market - even the one for ideas. Witness the drive for censorship. It's the exact same mechanism at work.
And the historical record for unregulated sales of food is even worse than the one for unregulated sales of medicines. It's not even a century since Radium-infused toothpaste became a banned item.
Meanwhile all our finest medical authorities for decades and decades have been assuring us that normal healthy people can get all their nutrients from a regular diet and taking supplements is economically foolish and often quite dangerous too.
Every once in a while a study does slip through demonstrating the decrease in naturally-occurring vitamins and minerals in our crops and that a tomato today ain't nuthin' like what great-grandma put in her sauce.
Fifty years ago when I traveled in France I was shocked by the difference between our fruit and theirs. Bite into a French peach and the juice would run down my face. It was like accidentally stumbling into the Garden of Eden. And when I was in South Asia, I was amazed that a hard-boiled egg didn't even need to be salted, it was so naturally tasty because the chicken who laid it ran around and supplemented its own diet with the bugs it was supposed to eat so we wouldn't have to.
Can testify to that - call me a snob but I have trouble eating factory eggs nowadays, and we have a damn sight more strict and consumer-oriented laws on food than does the USA.
But factory eggs? Tastes of the fish-based feed they give them.
Fresh fruit and vegetables, don't even get me started. The homegrown trumps the doemstically grown which trumps the imported stuff by a country mile.
I do miss those edible cactus-things they grow on Sicily though - can't get them here for love nor money.
And supplements, well if needed, which you generally don't provided the food is actually food. Sad state of affairs it is when "profits first" means steadily lowered quality.
A few months ago I harvested a radish from my little windowsill garden and that thing was amazing.
No wonder there's absolute terror in DC now. All their own fault. They could've left the guy alone to kvetch to his cronies in Mar-a-Lago ever after. But they wanted to salt the ground in Carthage so to speak, and here we are now. We should send flowers and chocolates to Alvin Bragg with our deepest gratitude.
Every tomato, chicken, orange, or celery stalk you eat, whether from your garden or Publix is genetically modified. We have been doing it for centuries by selective breeding. Heirloom tomatoes or wild salmon might be the only exceptions. It is not enough or correct to write 'GMO'.
Exactly! GMOs, "pink sludge", protein cubes made to look like meat, cancer meat, anything re- or hyper-processed, et cetera.
Full disclosure and let people vote with their wallet. Bet you donuts to dollars (or should that be in reverse nowadays?) people would start buying produce and raw goods as much as they could, instead of superstore-style MREs.
It's as I harp on to people over here: I don't mind if the store sells donkey or horse meat - as long as I know what I'm buying.
Ya know, DJT's lightning series of advisors/cabinet reminds me of one my favorite Screams when my Oakland A's (*don't* get me started; they haven't moved to Vegas yet) are in the midst of a crooked-number inning:
If you can't speak your mind it is because you don't have one. Like I asked my wife on the drive home today as we passed plowed fields how come some of the dirt looks blacker in some fields than in others...I pondered this then asked her if it is because they have more dirt in them?
I don't think Kirsch will respond. I'll just ride the coat-tails of his comment to delve into the larger topic instead:
The OG futurists and technophiles of the late 19th century and early 20th century modernists (the people the like of Musk, Bezos, Gates, et cetera model themselves on) argued that robots were the answer to Kirsch's problem.
When all odious, ardous, dangerous and dirty tasks are done by robots (remember that this was back when they used small children as chimney-sweeps, among other horrors), humans will be free to creat and produce whatever they feel like, and will be able to live in peace, using not money based on gold or greed but tokens awarded based on need and ability and what input you have made for society.
(No, not communism - that's something else.)
If the above reminds you of Star Trek, it's because the inspiration for it was the visions from ca 150-100 years ago, of a post-capitalist liberal progressive unified humanity, liberated by mastery over machines.
The dilemma is of course that while we have had the technology to eradicate starvation, poverty, homelessness, and lack of utilities/social goods for those least fortunate/able - our systems of finance prevents it from coming into being.
(Again, not communism - these ideas are all classic liberalism: free mankind from the slavery imposed by our material needs and circumstances. Communism, funnily enough, grew from the ideas of classic liberalism.)
The idea is sadly an "underpants gnomes"-one: We have step one, develop the requisite technology, which we have had since the 1920s at least, and we have step three: no abject poverty et cetera. But what's step two?
Every attempt to make that step has failed, no matter if it was done under a communist, Maoist, liberalist, capitalist, or other -ist system. Something is missing, and it's not the tech.
PS: And he is wrong about poverty being the basis for economy. Poverty is the /result/ of (makro-scale) mismanaged economy, or rotten luck, stupidity or crime (mikro-scale) or mismanagement on the individual level.
I apologize to John for my unnecessary and counter-productive vitriol.
I stand by my disagreement of course: I think Capitalism (true, not crony) is the system of maximum individual freedom and societal wealth creation, the only system that guarantees every individual, no matter his luck or station, maximum agency to improve his own lot.
That makes Capitalism the most *moral* (i.e. good for humans qua humans) of any social system.
All the others try to do something impossible: to mitigate luck, and in so trying can only increase injustice.
I'd call it allowing the good to flourish, without causing suffering while also trying to mitigate or remove suffering if possible, without causing suffering by doing so.
May I add that (imo) the "trying to mitigate or remove suffering" must be done by individuals in the private sector acting (either individually or *voluntarily* collectively) on their own judgment.
Public sector action inevitably forces some individuals to pay for that with which they disagree, and I think this immoral.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
A blast from the past: "President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico."
> You might think since Trump is going to be in charge of the censorship complex, Psaki would back off the censorship cheerleading, but not learning anything is a staple of Democrats these days.
IDK, at least she's being ideologically consistent?
A shadow cabinet is not a bad idea. It gives the out party a chance to put a point person in place to discuss/criticize the positions of the in party. That person is presenting the out party's views and auditioning for future consideration in a future cabinet (or other post). It is probably a better vetting system that the primary system we have now.
What's that saying? When your opposition is putting their foot in their mouth, shut up and pull it out so they can do it again.
Seems to me that was the story of their campaign. Actually, in 2020 also (kept him in the basement), but peeps are onto their *un*democratic ways now, so it didn't work. That and, well...the dingdong couldn't articulate. Word *salad*? More like bowl of lettuce.
Now, all their whining is making them even less popular. Let them shadow all the good and popular things I hope and trust are about to happen, for all of us to see and hear.
Cards on the table, ladies and gentlemen, so all can see and hear.
You know, I haven't thought of it exactly that way, but that is something I've wondered about, ever since they *didn't* make clear to Biden he *wasn't* to run again. They should have made that clear a year and a half ago, and had primaries to choose a new candidate.
Musk said that Trump is not a threat to democracy. He is a threat to bureaucracy.
As a former government civil servant for 13 years, I had to resign because I couldn't stand the bloat and wastefulness of time and taxpayer's money.
What's worse is the lies and persecution perpetrated by our government. But now, there is a new sheriff in town with a posse of smart, renegade deputies. Rumor has it that paper shredders are sold out inside the beltway.
Watching the game?
That's no 4-5 team!
West Coast, West Coast.
Admittedly, I didn't pay very close attention, but isn't this shadow government idea simply opposition-party strategizing? Unless of course they're not supposed to spend official congressional time doing such things...?
And--my letter to the editor of our regional newspaper just got published. A strong contrast, as you may guess, to all the sackcloth and ashes and wailing.
The hilarious thing is my compadre in sentiments is the pastor of a small evangelical church with whom I became email friends after meeting in the opinion columns of the paper before our Plague Era began. He's been man enough to accept I ain't convertible in the spiritual realm and move past the disappointment. He's the only one up here with whom I am able to celebrate the victory...
So Psaki missed the elephant, the fact her erstwhile boss is a notorious liar...she's not alone, of course.
This is so delicious.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/15/industry-rfk-donald-trump-hhs-00189674
'One health industry leader, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the appointment, acknowledged they were caught off guard — they had thought Trump would pick former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal or former Surgeon General Jerome Adams — and HADN’T HAD ANY STRATEGIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OPPOSING KENNEDY.'
That phrase I caps-locked: that smacks of incompetence to me.
Off guard? Really? Even after the election that took them off guard? Bunch of losers.
They thought 2016 Trump was coming in and they could handle him the same way.
And apparently they didn't notice the guy going from court appearances to campaign rallies, day after day, unflaggingly, relentlessly.
This time it's Genghis Attila J. Trump.
You are squarely in my wheelhouse here, as I've been reading medical- and nutrition-science literature since 2010 when I discovered Gary Taubes. One thing a lot of us have been screaming about for years is the conflict of interest among members of the Dietary Guidelines Committee, which ignores much current research on things like salt and saturated fat. I should go to RFK's online proposal site and recommend Nina Teicholz be appointed to the committee.
In the fields of nutritional and pharma research among others, there are many things that could be implemented to improve the situation fairly quickly. Government funded research should require publication at the end of the study (a lot of research with undesirable outcomes that can't be manipulated never gets published); government funded studies should require full disclosure of all raw data (a lot of it is redacted or not reported, allowing sketchy methodology or analysis to go undetected); government funded studies should be freely available after publication, without the exorbitant paywalls erected by journals; ...that's just off the top of my head.
My Adelle Davis paperback has turned into parchment already. I truly can't remember what set me on this road but I've been reading labels and taking my vitamins and declining to use free samples of things like the Rely tampons since my 20s. It was of course a grief to me to have to stop eating all those red candies that were a considerable part of my childhood diet.
I'd love a side gig as The Multivitamin Fairy who visits every person in their fertile years. I tested the seriousness of the now unhusband's insistence that he was ready to become a father by my own insistence that he quit smoking and take his vitamins for six months before I had my IUD of blessed memory removed.
Such simple steps to prevent so much misery in the world.
This snippet tells me everything I ever needed to know about American food industry:
"The FDA is expected to propose regulation that would require some kind of nutrition labeling before the end of the year. In Trump’s first term, White House officials or Republicans in Congress would likely have quashed it."
Food producers/seller fighting /against/ nutritional data. Here, a product - no matter if it's chewing gum or breath mints or even table salt may not be sold without it. And every single package must carry the data printed and legible, and our FDA has a very handy app for anyone wnating to look up E-numbers or additives or any other ingredient: if the ingredient isn't on record and approved, it can't be in the food at all.
This will be interesting to see how it plays out, from several angles, not the least how internet libertarians will react - will they oppose government demands for nutritional data to be compulsory, and argue "the market" will produce best results, or will they understand that it is in the interests of "the market" to withold information?
The proposal I've seen is a new item on the front like a big green checkmark that says "Healthy". The big problem here is that what the American mainstream and officialdom consider "healthy" is often anything but. This is a direct result of industry pressure on nutrition science, and regulatory capture.
That won't work, both for the reasons you mention and that it will be manipulated and exploited as a sales-arguement, causing more over-eating since it's "healthy" (same idea as with "diet"-sodas).
Here you have to have a full table of content, and stuff like Aspartam needs to be named and the product marked "contains artificial sweeteners", f.e.
On the other hand, in a fit of hilarious oversight, when the basis for the cureent laws and regulations were first made, no-one thought of supplements, such stuff not being en vogue at the time. (Excepting prescription ones of course, those counts as medicines and so follow those laws instead.)
Leading to companies selling supplements meant for dogs (f.e.) called GeroDog - extra vitamins and such for aging dogs - to humans under the name GeroVital, at 300% the price charged for the doggy version. Same contents from the same sources, and as supplements are neither food nor medicinal products, the rules are lax - it is highly likely that all the protein-powder gym-bros & gym-hos gorge on by the shovel-full, comes from carcasses deemed unfit for human consumption or animal food - old race-horses f.e.
It's "been under investigation" since the early 2000s, how to fit supplements of all kinds into the current system without creating loopholes capitalist corporations would use to sell substandard food and candy via.
Hilarious, no?
Olden days, a maker or seller of food that made people sick could be executed for murder.
Oh, we in the US have food labeling that's supposed to contain all ingredients listed in the order of quantity. Of course, industry has found all kinds of ways of circumventing transparency. A good rule of thumb is if you don't recognize the ingredients as food objects, don't eat it.
Since I don't buy or eat any packaged goods anyway, not a problem for me.
I think it's in the interest of the market to publish that information whether the food industry likes it or not :)
Sadly, isn't. The lower the information-level of the customer, the easier the sale. This creates, even without nefarious purposes, a rationality that makes producers/sellers want to withold as much info as they can.
Which is a universal rule for any market - even the one for ideas. Witness the drive for censorship. It's the exact same mechanism at work.
And the historical record for unregulated sales of food is even worse than the one for unregulated sales of medicines. It's not even a century since Radium-infused toothpaste became a banned item.
Meanwhile all our finest medical authorities for decades and decades have been assuring us that normal healthy people can get all their nutrients from a regular diet and taking supplements is economically foolish and often quite dangerous too.
Every once in a while a study does slip through demonstrating the decrease in naturally-occurring vitamins and minerals in our crops and that a tomato today ain't nuthin' like what great-grandma put in her sauce.
Fifty years ago when I traveled in France I was shocked by the difference between our fruit and theirs. Bite into a French peach and the juice would run down my face. It was like accidentally stumbling into the Garden of Eden. And when I was in South Asia, I was amazed that a hard-boiled egg didn't even need to be salted, it was so naturally tasty because the chicken who laid it ran around and supplemented its own diet with the bugs it was supposed to eat so we wouldn't have to.
Can testify to that - call me a snob but I have trouble eating factory eggs nowadays, and we have a damn sight more strict and consumer-oriented laws on food than does the USA.
But factory eggs? Tastes of the fish-based feed they give them.
Fresh fruit and vegetables, don't even get me started. The homegrown trumps the doemstically grown which trumps the imported stuff by a country mile.
I do miss those edible cactus-things they grow on Sicily though - can't get them here for love nor money.
And supplements, well if needed, which you generally don't provided the food is actually food. Sad state of affairs it is when "profits first" means steadily lowered quality.
A few months ago I harvested a radish from my little windowsill garden and that thing was amazing.
No wonder there's absolute terror in DC now. All their own fault. They could've left the guy alone to kvetch to his cronies in Mar-a-Lago ever after. But they wanted to salt the ground in Carthage so to speak, and here we are now. We should send flowers and chocolates to Alvin Bragg with our deepest gratitude.
Label GMOs
Every tomato, chicken, orange, or celery stalk you eat, whether from your garden or Publix is genetically modified. We have been doing it for centuries by selective breeding. Heirloom tomatoes or wild salmon might be the only exceptions. It is not enough or correct to write 'GMO'.
Exactly! GMOs, "pink sludge", protein cubes made to look like meat, cancer meat, anything re- or hyper-processed, et cetera.
Full disclosure and let people vote with their wallet. Bet you donuts to dollars (or should that be in reverse nowadays?) people would start buying produce and raw goods as much as they could, instead of superstore-style MREs.
It's as I harp on to people over here: I don't mind if the store sells donkey or horse meat - as long as I know what I'm buying.
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/psaki-russian-hat.jpg
Gotta love whenever Товарищ Psaki accuses people of being a Russian asset.
Ya know, DJT's lightning series of advisors/cabinet reminds me of one my favorite Screams when my Oakland A's (*don't* get me started; they haven't moved to Vegas yet) are in the midst of a crooked-number inning:
"KEEP THE LINE MOVING!!"
That was the mantra of the '14/'15 Royals, too.
https://www.mlb.com/news/royals-adopt-keep-the-line-moving-mentality/c-156144678
KC makes 'keep the line moving' a way of life
(I thought you might notice. Loved it so, I stole it like I was the runner in a suicide squeeze.)
(...think Pete Rose!)
If you can't speak your mind it is because you don't have one. Like I asked my wife on the drive home today as we passed plowed fields how come some of the dirt looks blacker in some fields than in others...I pondered this then asked her if it is because they have more dirt in them?
Poverty is the basis for the American economy. People are forced to sell their time and labor in exchange for the money they need to survive.
Nothing "free" about that.
I apologize for the tone of my initial response below, John.
As well you should.
Such grace.
No shit, Sherlock.
What's your alternative?
Death?
I don't think Kirsch will respond. I'll just ride the coat-tails of his comment to delve into the larger topic instead:
The OG futurists and technophiles of the late 19th century and early 20th century modernists (the people the like of Musk, Bezos, Gates, et cetera model themselves on) argued that robots were the answer to Kirsch's problem.
When all odious, ardous, dangerous and dirty tasks are done by robots (remember that this was back when they used small children as chimney-sweeps, among other horrors), humans will be free to creat and produce whatever they feel like, and will be able to live in peace, using not money based on gold or greed but tokens awarded based on need and ability and what input you have made for society.
(No, not communism - that's something else.)
If the above reminds you of Star Trek, it's because the inspiration for it was the visions from ca 150-100 years ago, of a post-capitalist liberal progressive unified humanity, liberated by mastery over machines.
The dilemma is of course that while we have had the technology to eradicate starvation, poverty, homelessness, and lack of utilities/social goods for those least fortunate/able - our systems of finance prevents it from coming into being.
(Again, not communism - these ideas are all classic liberalism: free mankind from the slavery imposed by our material needs and circumstances. Communism, funnily enough, grew from the ideas of classic liberalism.)
The idea is sadly an "underpants gnomes"-one: We have step one, develop the requisite technology, which we have had since the 1920s at least, and we have step three: no abject poverty et cetera. But what's step two?
Every attempt to make that step has failed, no matter if it was done under a communist, Maoist, liberalist, capitalist, or other -ist system. Something is missing, and it's not the tech.
PS: And he is wrong about poverty being the basis for economy. Poverty is the /result/ of (makro-scale) mismanaged economy, or rotten luck, stupidity or crime (mikro-scale) or mismanagement on the individual level.
Thank you, Rikard.
Your voice of reason has calmed me once again.
I apologize to John for my unnecessary and counter-productive vitriol.
I stand by my disagreement of course: I think Capitalism (true, not crony) is the system of maximum individual freedom and societal wealth creation, the only system that guarantees every individual, no matter his luck or station, maximum agency to improve his own lot.
That makes Capitalism the most *moral* (i.e. good for humans qua humans) of any social system.
All the others try to do something impossible: to mitigate luck, and in so trying can only increase injustice.
I'd call it allowing the good to flourish, without causing suffering while also trying to mitigate or remove suffering if possible, without causing suffering by doing so.
If that makes sense?
Yes!
May I add that (imo) the "trying to mitigate or remove suffering" must be done by individuals in the private sector acting (either individually or *voluntarily* collectively) on their own judgment.
Public sector action inevitably forces some individuals to pay for that with which they disagree, and I think this immoral.
That's a mealy-mouthed defense of the indefensible.
Make your arguement then.
I'd appreciate it if you started with explaining what I'm defending.
Don’t you want to tell us who is forcing people to sell their time and labor for money?
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
-- Robert Heinlein
A blast from the past: "President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico."
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/obama-considers-stars-for-cabinet-015320
Like
It's sort of nuts that the Democrats have gone so insane they can't even support their own people from 2008/2016/2020.
> You might think since Trump is going to be in charge of the censorship complex, Psaki would back off the censorship cheerleading, but not learning anything is a staple of Democrats these days.
IDK, at least she's being ideologically consistent?
Sorry, I got nothing.
Is she goading him to do it?
He won't, but that's all I got.
how is that shadow cabinet thing not treason?? and why can't tulsi gabbard sue AOC (and hillary) for libel?
A shadow cabinet is not a bad idea. It gives the out party a chance to put a point person in place to discuss/criticize the positions of the in party. That person is presenting the out party's views and auditioning for future consideration in a future cabinet (or other post). It is probably a better vetting system that the primary system we have now.
🙌
UK has one.
Even though I don't like what was promoted, there is Constitutional free speech...even if from idiots, some time crafty, criminal idiots.
It’s just Dems LARPing. Best to just ridicule and not give them the gravitas they are seeking.
Exactly.
What's that saying? When your opposition is putting their foot in their mouth, shut up and pull it out so they can do it again.
Seems to me that was the story of their campaign. Actually, in 2020 also (kept him in the basement), but peeps are onto their *un*democratic ways now, so it didn't work. That and, well...the dingdong couldn't articulate. Word *salad*? More like bowl of lettuce.
Now, all their whining is making them even less popular. Let them shadow all the good and popular things I hope and trust are about to happen, for all of us to see and hear.
Cards on the table, ladies and gentlemen, so all can see and hear.
How is a "shadow government" not treason?
Seems pretty damned insurrectiony to me.
Put him in the dungeon! Keep him there for ever!
Here's a (the) question: Are Democrats pushing even harder to the left out of reflex or by design?
You know, I haven't thought of it exactly that way, but that is something I've wondered about, ever since they *didn't* make clear to Biden he *wasn't* to run again. They should have made that clear a year and a half ago, and had primaries to choose a new candidate.
Musk said that Trump is not a threat to democracy. He is a threat to bureaucracy.
As a former government civil servant for 13 years, I had to resign because I couldn't stand the bloat and wastefulness of time and taxpayer's money.
What's worse is the lies and persecution perpetrated by our government. But now, there is a new sheriff in town with a posse of smart, renegade deputies. Rumor has it that paper shredders are sold out inside the beltway.
Yesterday the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held what looks to be a final hearing, on Preparing for the Next Pandemic: Lessons Learned and The Path Forward: https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/
If you don't have time to watch the hearing, maybe at least check the prepared testimonies from CDC, FDA, and NIH people.
I've read some of their stuff about that, and was not impressed. They just want to double down on the Covid mistakes.
Well, we *know* Statists will *never* stop.
*Continuous* populism from the Right is the *only* check.
We need a stronger Constitution, fo sho.