Christine Pelosi was trying to dismiss the complaint (i.e., make the elections stick).

“The Catholic Church has always loved free speech” is not an extremist position, it’s just factually false. Even people who love the Church acknowledge that the Reformation and Inquisition happened and heretics were burned for expressing “bad” ideas. That people shouldn’t be burned to death for heresy was even one of the statements that got Martin Luther excommunicated.

The point of protest is not to annoy your enemy or convert his true believers.

Note that this is from January, so this was even before the gestapo went into overdrive with refusing to show warrants or identifications.

There were two positions remaining, and one of them had to be male. From the description, I think everyone had 2 votes and one had to be for a man, so if votes were split evenly and no one voted for both men, the men would each get 50% and the three women would get 33%. A real vote isn’t going to be perfectly split, but it puts the neutral expectation for the male candidates much higher than the women. If the men went head to head and then there was a separate vote with the second place and the women, there wouldn’t be the same bias.

They have a story that the challenge started before the “tension”, but there’s no way both this vote and the revote (assuming it goes through) are not being driven by it. There’re probably too clever by half strategists thinking they’re being sneaky by using an “unrelated” vote to take him out, but no one except the shill types on Twitter is going to parse the process in that way.

People get that the vibe is hostile to Hogg and young activists in general and someone saying “technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement” doesn’t mean jack shit when it’s obvious a lot more is going on. Hell, even if it were all on the up and up, the vibe is still there and no one that matters cares about the minutiae of voting processes and challenges. Voters aren’t robots.

I don’t think the challenge is bullshit, but it’s also not clear that the result was definitely impacted or in any way planned. Seems like a situation of “whoops, let’s be more careful in the future” (the position held by Christine Pelosi of all people) rather than inviting a party schism by using this to try to eject Hogg. Because there will definitely be people lobbying voters to explicitly do that.

And you don’t even notice that you only include one group in “citizens”.

Would you like to know more?

And those jobs weren’t good because they were in a factory, they were good because they were union.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FWD.us

It’s a Zuckerberg-funded lobbying organization focused on increasing H1B immigration to work as a desk-serf for the tech-lords. They neither care about electing Democrats nor managing immigration over the southern border.

I love that two of the (very few) countries in which the US is more popular than China are BRICS members.

…Yes. Of course.

How could that not be a sarcastic statement?

The Catholic Church, an organization that has always been happy with everyone just being able to express their beliefs without persecution.

Why did no one think of just asking them nicely before now?! The solution has been at our fingertips for decades.

It doesn’t matter how he wants to frame it or even if California liberals like it, it’s still going to end up with him defending videos of people having their possessions thrown away by a black-clad goon squad.

People may look the other way to that sort of shit when it’s their neighborhood and they’re tired of all the noise and obstructions, but NIMBYism only really holds strong when it’s your backyard. When it’s elsewhere you can pretend you have better morals and get offended.

And notably, if the beds are better than literally sleeping on a sidewalk, you don’t need a law to criminalize the latter. The law only becomes useful if you need to make living on the street worse because you don’t want to make living in a shelter better.

Not going to happen. Not because the conservative Democrats won’t be able to hoodwink enough primary voters to believe the highest priority is accommodating what they think their shittiest neighbor could (but will not) tolerate, but because in doing so they’ll lose the voters they actually need to win and Don Jr. will ascend to the throne.

Oh man, why didn’t we think of that before? Just ban homelessness, then no one will be homeless! What a brilliant leader.

Oh damn, I was really hoping we’d be able to turn things around.

Yeah, they want to ride the edge and put forth the most conservative a candidate possible that still has a plausible road to victory (and the plausibility can be pretty thin). The last few candidates haven’t been anywhere close to just lining up with the most popular issues (either within the Democratic party or the larger electorate).