I hear you. I think the difference is that France has way more worker protections, strong and influential unions, a solid social safety net, and frankly a less ruthless government, so there's less fear of financial ruin for work stoppages.

Meanwhile, corporations in America keep the working poor as close to bonded slavery as they can get away with without pushing them over the edge to violence, though even that equilibrium is starting to shift based on worker attitudes I hear. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the federal government as well as state governments regularly sided with corporations over workers and murdered hundreds of them, and workers mostly lost or had their lives destroyed. The frequency of conflict finally resulted in union protections... like 50 years later. Now most of those protections have been unraveled, and many low-income workers are a few months of missed rent payments away from homelessness. If they lose their job, there will be a dozen people waiting to take that job right after. So asking for a general strike is asking people to face certain financial ruin for themselves and their families.

That said, to be honest, it's a wonder to me that there hasn't been more violence between workers and corporations. As they keep taking things away from the working poor, though, I think it's coming. The problem is that propaganda is so strong that the violence may be misdirected. Either way, worker retaliation leading to a wider conflict is one of the only avenues I can see for systemic change.

That or secession.

Look, I think we're basically on the same side of this. My point is that England is not the US, a cousin in Texas does not give you a complete picture, heck even Americans who grew up on the East Coast don't understand the Midwest and vice versa. I've spent a month in a country in north Africa, a month in one in east Africa, I've made friends in those places and had long conversations with them about their countries, and I wouldn't dream of assuming I understand those countries because I don't. Since you have family in the US you of all people should be rooting for us to get our house in order. Posting defeatist or judgmental comments about the people who are against this, about people who are against fascism, against Israeli influence in our politics, may make you feel better in the short term, but it might be the comment that someone who was on the fence about taking action sees and pushes them into thinking "Why bother?"

Anyway, I've said my piece, I'll stop there.

Liberals say this all the time. We can't say or do X because it will just embolden MAGA! That's how you end up with feckless nothings like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Fascists need to be challenged at every opportunity.

You judge a diverse country the size of all of Europe while evidently knowing very little about it. And the fact that you blame another country for your own country's problems means you are pretending to be other than you are. We know our problems come from within.

Oh? How's Lebanon doing right now? Rule of law? Corruption? Press freedoms? Economy and unemployment? It must be all good there given how frequently you post about America.

Besides the fact that this guy is a fascist, I'm tired of judicial nominees refusing to answer any questions whatsoever by saying how inappropriate it would be to answer. It's gotten to the point where every nominee responds to every question like this:

Multiple Democratic senators pressed Bove in their questionnaire to clarify if Bove believes the Constitution permits Mr. Trump to run for a third term, despite the restrictions of the 22nd Amendment, which states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

"As a nominee to the Third Circuit, it would not be appropriate for me to address how this Amendment would apply in an abstract hypothetical scenario," Bove responded on multiple occasions. "To the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding term limits, or on statements by any political figure, my response, consistent with the positions of prior judicial nominees, is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee."

Of course, apparently it doesn't actually matter if they lie directly, since multiple Supreme Court nominees have without consequence.

Oh, I thought it might be a screening of one of his good films. I'll pass

He's already made statements well before this that he basically hates his job. This allows him to go out self-righteously

Jump Bug (late 1981) is the earliest. It has an entirely underwater level, and the car moves more slowly in it. It was also one of the earliest platformers, beaten only by Donkey Kong (mid 1981) and a couple others.

Super Mario Bros. (1985) introduced a significantly different mechanic for its water levels from the rest of the game, specifically swimming, and it was about a bajillion times more popular than Jump Bug. But it wasn't the first.

Maybe it can be a Murder on the Orient Express situation

I love how outspoken and defiant Brown is

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the court to record a dissent. She said President Donald Trump is unleashing a “wrecking ball” on the federal government, and she slammed the court’s majority for its “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”

Jackson, a Biden appointee, said her colleagues were inappropriately reinterpreting Illston’s findings, noting that appeals courts are supposed to adhere to a lower court’s conclusions about disputed facts. Lower courts have better command of the facts at this early stage in the litigation, she wrote in a 15-page dissent.

Now churches will move the line and announce their endorsements publicly ("That announcement was intended for our congregations only!") and dare the IRS to do something about it.

Yeah, of course he's guilty. I'm saying the accusation should be enough and they shouldn't have to wait for him to be convicted. But either way they should establish a policy around it.

Yeah, it's set to release at the end of next year. I'm pretty excited to see the arc wrap up, but I hope they stop there and don't try to do the rest of the series.

The Nobel committee should maybe not accept nominations from an accused ICC war criminal

It's OK, they won't

Birthright citizenship was not struck down. Universal injunctions were struck down, which means the Constitution will be applied in any cases where a state has a law on the books or a class action suit has been brought and a statewide injunction has been declared. These suits will wind their way through the courts and may possibly be heard by the Supreme Court.

I'd like to predict the USSC would decline to hear the case because there would be no discrepancies in prior rulings and the legal question would be so obvious, but I've given up trying to predict this court. In any event, I do think it's unlikely they would rule against birthright citizenship, since it would be plainly unconstitutional and there's no real wiggle room to reinterpret it differently.

I know you said "almost" too bad, but it would have been irreversible. Everything else they've done can be reversed with enough effort. I'm glad the American public can at least unite around our public lands.

It's really dumb and alarmist to run projections six years from now about annual revenue loss, as if the state will never pass another bill about transportation.

What motivated you to join this community then?