So here's the problem. Most (but admittedly not all) of the R reps & sens are signing up for this charade *because they know it will fail*. Their calculus is this gives them a media / primary advantage for doing it, but can safely discount the logical conclusion of their argument

That works for them because there's basically no personal cost to doing it. And in the US system as it is, not at all clear to me that externally-imposed consequences would ever be remotely on the table. Not criminal; no personal consequences; no political costs. So an easy win.
The problem is that this strategy is now the new normal. Next time the political cost of engaging in this strategy will be *far* lower.
That's fine (but obnoxious) so long as it stays in the realm of symbolic political bullshittery.

But one day it won't be. Maybe that'll be in 2025, maybe 2029, maybe later. But eventually this strategy will coincide with majorities in Congress where the strategy isn't doomed
And on that day, America will break in a way that won't resolve without extreme violence. America *will not survive* the direct blow of a democratic election for the highest office being explicitly overruled by the other party.
What Hawley et al are doing right now is not a constitutional crisis because it is doomed and everyone knows it. But thanks to their actions, America is now a dice-roll from a real constitutional crisis every 4 years.
Realistically, the only way to avoid this now is to burn that strategy out of existence with an amendment taking Congress' ceremonial role in presidential elections away from them. They can't be trusted with it anymore, because they turned that ceremony into a constitutional bomb
And for those saying "but amendments are hard", sure, it's true. But the alternative is we'll eventually sleep walk into a fundamental power legitimacy dispute, and when that resolves the constitution will just be whatever the person standing on top of the rubble tells you it is.
"But how do you get red states to vote on this amendment?". Come on folks, that's not even a hard question.

More from For later read

the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like