Well, Kate has been around as an KDE based advanced text editor for nearly 2 decades now - its base feature set isn't too different from a base VS Code installation. And there's also KDevelop as a more full featured IDE.
At least I get to feel vindicated. Many many people, including me, have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but. Historically their decisions have appealed to a certain kind of conservative political base, but the pretense is really starting to wear thin. Limiting the power of the executive branch in general was never the goal, it was only to limit the power of presidents who were willing to challenge the capitalist oligarchy master plan. They know that their job now, along with their allies and Congress, is to simply step aside and manage public outrage while the next phase of the plan is set in motion. I'm not just talking about in recent years either, go back through the Obama and W Bush administrations. You might notice that the conservatives in the court curiously turned more conservative when "their guy" isn't in office.
What we're seeing now isn't exactly the power of capitalist oligarchy but right-wing populist authoritarianism. They forge alliances with wealthy figures to achieve goals and engage in a corrupt patronage system like in an undeveloped country, but if this were a capitalist coup we would not be seeing anything like the absurd and illegal tariffs, brutal response to immigrants, etc.
I know leftists like to describe these sorts of phenomena (including Hitler's rise) as all part of the capitalist overlords' master plans, but that's not the most accurate description. Capitalists like Andreessen will cynically exploit it and hop on the bandwagon and benefit from it to the extent they can, but right-wing populist authoritarianism is its own beast, and they're just trying to position themselves as along for the ride rather than in its jaws. The regime is happy to reward capitalist loyalists and I do not deny there is a mutualism occurring, but it is more complex than a movement centered around capitalism.
I think you and parent comment are just using the word conservative in two different ways. There is conservative values and there is the conservative party, two different things.
I am saying that these are real conservative values. It is not true that these would be just something conservative party does while claiming to believe something else. Instead, if you read what conservative people write and say, in journals, books, talk shows, anywhere ... this is exactly what they believe in.
It may be my European context / political definitions, but at least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).
E.g., letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.
I was trying to point out that conservative as a political philosophy != whatever Fox news preaches this month, but perhaps the word is used differently in the US..
Anyway point is, I'm sure the post you responded to used the word conservative more in the way I'm used to (European way?), thus your cross-talk.
> t least around here the word "conservative" would include vigorously defending the rule of law and courts (along with property rights and so on).
When exactly was that last time? Note that rule of law would include demands that police follows the law too. As far as I can tell, it was never rule of law in the sense of "everyone must follow the law". It was "people we dont like must follow the law and we will max punishments for them".
> letting people who attacked police officers on Jan 6 out of prison is about as anti-conservative as you get.
Only because this time, police was standing against what conservatives wanted. When it was helping them, yes, it was different.
They are conservatives. People that care about things like small governments and fiscal responsibility are not. It's sad when somebody takes control over a group you identify with and changes it's goals but you're one person versus millions. The word doesn't mean what it used to.
An enormous proportion of Republican voters were already Trumpers as early as the ‘90s, but didn’t have a candidate yet, so had to settle for “vote Republican to keep the democrats from doing all the bad things Rush says they will”.
Republican partisan-propaganda media after anti-trust de-fanging (mid ‘70s) and media deregulation (‘80s-‘00s) became huge, and cultivated an electorate that wanted Trump but had to settle for tepidly-socially-conservative neoliberal Republicans. Such voters would tell you all day long about how we should just build a border wall (or mine it…), cut trade and foreign military engagements (though those have some cross-aisle appeal), question why we extend civil rights and due process to [pick a group], tell you we should use the military against protesters in cities, wonder why anyone opposes cops beating suspects unless they love crime, and so on, and they’d tell you that stuff many years before Trump’s 2016 run.
Isn't that a big part of the issues the US has with passing a budget? Some of their tax breaks etc. have expiry dates so keep needing to be renewed. I think part of the current shutdown is related to the debate about renewing the obamacare tax breaks which have/are due to expire
So they do the thing where they set breaks to sunset in order to make the bill revenue neutral according to the CBO.
Then, later on, when the tax breaks are ready to sunset, they convince the CBO that the tax breaks constitute the new baseline. So now when they pass the next budget they are not considered "new" and they do NOT need to be balanced with cuts or increases any more.
It's a total end run around the intention of the process.
very true, although in relation to OPs point I was talking less about the why of expiring laws/taxes and just pointing out that creating laws that expire can have its own less than desirable knock on effects
To over simplify the process: Budgets in the US are supposed to be revenue neutral. The use of sunset provisions, like the SALT cap, allow Congress to play with the math in order to make it follow its own rules. These provisions are really a gimmick because not extending them before expiration becomes a political problem. I.e. letting the SALT cap expire would “give the rich a tax break”. Note: I’m not arguing the validity of the SALT cap).
> Budgets in the US are supposed to be revenue neutral.
To clarify - budgets passed via the reconciliation are supposed to be revenue neutral. The reconciliation process takes away the Senate's filibuster. When the filibuster is in play, it effectively requires a 60-40 supermajority to pass anything.
(No this is not how the founders imagined the process going when they wrote the rules.)
reply