bostonbananarama

joined 1 year ago
[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier?

No. His debate performance is what pushed it over the edge. That's when a concerted effort began to get him out.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is naive. A Democrat isn't going to challenge a sitting president for the nomination. Pelosi is absolutely right about this. Biden never should have run for reelection.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Police: Not aware of anything

Trump: Similarly, not aware of anything, but willing to lie about it.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seriously it took a criminally long time for Rudy to see this particular, well deserved, consequence to his actions.

Did it though? His actions followed the 2020 election, so they occurred at various times in 2021. Bar discipline isn't occurring while the original cases are pending. Then there is a complaint filed, which has to be investigated, and if they find corroboration, then there needs to be an administrative hearing, akin to a trial.

Please understand that this is a person's livelihood and needs to be carefully considered. He was disbarred in the summer of 2024 in NY. I've had cases, not bar discipline, that take over 5 years to get to trial.

To be clear, I'm absolutely in favor of disbarring shitty attorneys who don't live up to their ethics obligations.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 91 points 5 days ago (7 children)

He's an idiot, it's extremely close, go vote!

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Have you read the voting rights act & the Supremacy Clause?

empathy is a double edge sword, often causing more suffering than not. empathy has no morals.

This makes no sense. People have moral systems, empathy is often a component of that.

compassion is love without conditions.

No it isn't. Compassion is about sympathy and pity, and also is without morals. Unconditional love isn't a thing, and people can act compassionately without loving someone. It also doesn't require understanding which is vital to resolution.

compassion does not require feeling what others are feeling in order to understand their suffering.

Empathy doesn't require you to feel their suffering, but to simply understand and appreciate it.

compassion is the goal, empathy is the shitty tool that sometimes achieves the goal.

Not my goal, seems shitty. Empathy appears to be superior.

Definitions:

Compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Why should it be taxed? Not "Why it shouldn't".

Because income is taxed. We have a progressive tax system, so the first small amount is untaxed, the next is taxed at a low rate, the next is taxed at a slightly higher rate, and so on through the tax brackets.

You're now saying that salary and hourly employees wages should be taxed, but not tipped income. So my question remains, why shouldn't it be taxed? Why create an inequity between different sources of income.

Imo, income tax should only affect the rich, and they aren't working tipped jobs.

Not taxing tipped income doesn't achieve your stated goal. The majority of low and middle income wage earners are still taxed. Altering the tax brackets would be more fair, and come closer to achieving your stated goal. Exempting tips remains a terrible idea.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Why would compassion be better than empathy?

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It being a bad idea makes it a bad idea though. Why would this source of income be exempt from taxation? Why is that a good idea? Why is a salaried or hourly employee less deserving of having their income exempted?

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats...

So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

view more: next ›