The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Some sort of workaround, passed by Congress, would obviously serve the interests of the public much better than periodic shutdowns which can last a month or more.

A law continue funding as though there was an ongoing CR in the event of appropriations lapses would be a good start. But if the argument is that Congress has exclusive control over spending, that doesn't preclude Congress passing some kind of stopgap law which prevents shutdowns as we know them.

Just because this is true does not at all require that shutdowns exist

GOAT meat stands

more like Glenn youngkOUT

VA too

quoting mario cuomo uncredited is such a funny move

"Tough on crime" isn't some "win elections" button People who think so are just hold that position themselves. Much of the commentariat has a terminal case of failing to understand agreeing with conservatives vs. believing they're right about the electorate.

Democrats abolished cash bail in IL, an enormous win for progressives and crimj reformers! Next cycle, republicans ran on BS mailers about "Purge Day" (seriously) and how the libs wanted to free the murderers and make your families live next to them. Democrats WON MORE SEATS that cycle

"Tough on crime" could mean more cops, or it could mean crueler prisons, or longer sentences, and so on. The weakness of "defund the police" was that it was amplified to the point of taking the equivalent place of "tough on crime" on the opposite side of the issue, which it shouldn't be!

Currently reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction and it's unbelievable how popular it was to argue that you couldn't redistribute land from plantation owners to freedmen because then they wouldn't know the value of hard work. Who in the world could know that value better than someone who was enslaved?

This hypocrisy is just another through-line you spot. The more you read about history, the more these arguments stay the same, regardless of who they're trying to keep down.

Currently reading Eric Foner's Reconstruction and it's unbelievable how popular it was to argue that you couldn't redistribute land from plantation owners to freedmen because then they wouldn't know the value of hard work. Who in the world could know that value better than someone who was enslaved?

This hypocrisy is just another through-line you spot. The more you read about history, the more these arguments stay the same, regardless of who they're trying to keep down.

Hello The Economist! It seems you're having trouble reading. I know the 22nd Amendment is a doozy at 162 words long, but fear not! All you need to read is the first 14 words: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"

Hope this helps!