1.5% was her popular vote margin. Hardly some blowout. Maybe instead of scapegoating brown people we look at the legitimate ways in which her campaign should have been better but couldn’t be because of corruption in the DNC. That corruption is correctable.

Marx made regular writings and letters to contemporary movements up until his death. At no point did he back down on violent, sudden revolution as the path to achieving Socialism. Marx was many things, but he wasn’t anti-gun.

Exactly. The Primary process is about getting your policies in the platform as much as it is getting you candidate(s) the nomination. She should run, a “standard neoliberal” should run, a corporatist should run etc… the process is allowed to be messy.

She also ran an incredibly poor campaign (Not completely her fault). Assuming she would have a run a Biden free open (which I’m not convinced of given how poorly she did in 2020), she would have done so by being good at campaigning and testing which messages swayed the electorate. Every winning canadite gets it.

Additionally the people you beat, give you a feel for the parts of the party that you need to bring into the coalition which you can satisfy as you build out your proposed VP and Cabinet. Think of how Obama brought in Clinton as Sec of State, Trump brought in Pence as VP to satisfy the religious right, how Biden brought in Harris etc… Harris didn’t have any of that feedback and picked a pretty questionable VP as a result.

At the end of the day she lost by 1.5% of the popular vote. And I got to imagine that the whole process lost her significantly more than that.

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.

The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn’t had the revolution they’d get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.

Actually they stopped claiming that during the Bernie-Hillary primaries. It’s part of why the candidates

Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the “Democratic Socialist” wind of the Democrats there’s really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.

This is why the “Christian Conservatives” always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they’ve always got a spot in the Republican party platform.

She should absolutely run. I don’t know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.

Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.

Wasn’t he openly bragging about regular use of Ketamine a few years ago?

I thought him (and the entire SV “tech bro” scene for that matter) being in drugs was an open secret?

What image?

That specific precedent likely doesn’t exist as most new cabinet level positions aren’t created by President Elects.

Historically the Logan act has been interpreted to not include the Presiden-Elect and their incoming administration.

If the things mentioned this is the most “normal”.

Ha! I got that reference!

See you get it!

Pay no attention to the Hezbollah operated tunnel system near the compounds lookout tower.

I think it’s this guy. Don’t quote me, but I think he’s Trump’s internal pollster guy. Apparently him an his outfit released a lot of polls that favored Trump and normally polls are released somewhat strategically (in Nate Silver’s experience) rather than wholesale.

Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes.

Congress didn’t have to stop the impeachment of Nixon. They chose too because Nixon agreed to never run for office again.

If we want that to change we need an Amendment that established an Independent, non-partisan Prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute Presidents and former Presidents.

The whole point is to prevent dangerous individuals from using these loopholes to buy guns.

Dangerous individuals largely aren’t using this loophole to buy guns. That’s part of the problem.

The only gun control that might have a chance at stopping gun crime is a total civilian ban and that requires an Amendment.

Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.

And potentially the removal of that person’s ability to ever run for office again.

Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial.

Yes, that’s the design. Because it’s not an “impartial” process but a political one. And because only 40 or so people have been given that protection, it makes perfect sense.

That’s an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.

The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.

Remember the DOJ reports to the President. A process where you’re either suppose to investigate your boss or investigate your Boss’s political allies/opponents would be way to open for abuse.

Trump can be prosecuted for what he did before the Presidency (as is being done in New York) and for what he has and will do after the Presidency (should he run back J6 part deuce). But for crimes committed while President impeachment is counterbalance.

That is the correct interpretation of the law. We could punish the Seal Team and their chain if command for following the order. But punishment of Biden himself would require him to be impeached.

And frankly that’s how it should be.

Obama killed that 16 year old in Yemen. He isn’t liable for that. Bush spied on Millions of Americans without warrants he isn’t liable for that. You can argue they should be; but that’s not how our system is designed.