Speaker of the House is the guy that gets to choose a lot of things on the capitol grounds. And new congressmembers are sworn in on January 3rd, so we’re already in the new Congress.

The Supreme Court denial is just words. He stopped implementing the previous plan because he accepted and followed those words, but he could not. Maybe his bureaucracy will reject him and refuse to go against the Supreme Court words, but that’s a question for his bureaucracy.

And yes, that’s how coups work. Sometimes the army/police/whatever backs down because some other entity in the civil power structure says “you can’t do that”. And other times, they don’t. It’s all decided based on the perceived power and righteousness of the two sides, not because the court just decides stuff and then it happens by some sort of magic.

He announced a broad cancellation that was going to happen months in the future, and the courts paused and then later said it wasn’t allowed. If it had progressed very quickly it would have been harder to block. One could argue it was intended to give the court a chance to block it.

This current forgiveness is an executive order, so if it’s not completed by the time Trump is the executive he can stop it easily.

And they will stop him how exactly?

Obama won by 10 million votes in 2008, and he wasn’t up against an incumbent with a (until Biden) historically low approval rating and in the middle of a crisis he was failing. Before the Democratic primary even started 56% of voters said they were definitely going to vote against Trump. Biden’s 6 million votes were by running up numbers in safe states, not a convincing electoral victory. The actual difference between winning and losing was 44k votes. Less than what would have flipped 2016 (80k), so unless you’re going to call Trump vs. Clinton a solid victory, Biden’s was a squeaker in an election that shouldn’t have been close.

Biden didn’t win in 2020 because he was a great politician, he was just the default. Nothing about either that primary or that election suggests a talented politician who just needed to refine his message and keep trying. Most of the early primary was the moderate lane desperately searching for someone other than Biden, and then in the general he barely beat Trump in an election that should have been a cake walk.

Her pattern this campaign was the same as her pattern in the primary, start out as a mainstream progressive talking about changing the system and fighting Republicans, then after getting phone calls from donors and listening to establishment advisors abandon it all for overly restrictive benefit programs and empty words. Almost every time she said something good she’d walk it back over the next week.

This doesn’t mean she should try again but finally buck her advisors and be her true self. Her deference to the sensibilities of rich donors is part of who she is.

Tell me more, establishment power structures, how celebrating the vigilante killing of a mass murderer in a suit is demonstrating the deep moral rot in our society.

There are more killers in C-suites than just the health insurance execs.

He also apparently gave cops the same fake ID he used at the hostel, despite having four fake IDs. My only guess is the initial escape was to keep the story alive for a week, then he either expected to be caught eventually or intentionally allowed himself to be caught so he could revitalize it and possibly start making public statements.

So your argument is that he voluntarily backed down from a coup that otherwise would have continued and worked even after the military knew the rest of the government, including those in his own party, rejected his claim? Like he had some earnest change of heart rather than knew it was failing?

Coups aren’t resolved by rules and regulations on who gets to command the military, they’re about whose message gets out as “official” and who the security forces follow, and he was obviously not winning that struggle. There were soldiers on the street apologizing and that the members of parliament even got into the building indicates the security forces weren’t fully on board. The very publicized opposition leader bypassed the restrictions by jumping a waist high fence.

And none of this subjective determination of which individual entity held the most sway in ending the coup matters to anything else in the piece. It’s not even a terribly important question.

Comrades, together we can outbribe the 1%!

I wouldn’t say no other. Rich assholes probably also make a lot of personal enemies. But there have to be many thousands of people with a deadly grudge against someone whose business is all about denying lifesaving coverage to people who dutifully paid the premiums that boosted their bottom lines.

That’s neither a significant difference nor something that majorly impacted anything written afterward.

How? The thing they wanted to happen happened, and the guy they’re trying to portray as having their back is a lame duck. The quote is an “official”, not a lawmaker and could be from the administration itself or any of a host of pro-Israel lawmakers who would happily reassure an Israeli newspaper that the Democratic establishment is still with them all while maintaining the faux confidentiality that intra-party lobbying has.

Do you think the Times of Israel is making things up? Because anonymous sources aren’t anonymous to the reporter, they’re anonymous to us. Granted, Israeli newspapers are quite a bit less trustworthy than most, but it’s hard to see how a fabrication is valuable to them.

Ah, the nostalgia of early net flame wars. Those were the days.

What actionable step would you expect her to do other than publicly call it bad and for congress to halt weapons transfers? Her only real power is in the senate and step one is rallying support with social influence.

That’s referring to a specific type of senate maneuver, which we all know isn’t likely to even come up for a vote, not the first time she expressed disapproval or called for action. She was the first senator to call it a genocide, which I agree was way later than it should have been, but notable nonetheless, and with other progressives was critical of the invasion within the first month.

I don’t think you’re dumb, there’s certainly a lot of information flowing through our feeds and it’s easy to miss statements and actions when in the end Warren isn’t the person who’s making decisions and the only real power she has is making a statement of principles that establishment figures very much do not want to talk about.