He also said there needs to be a “new law” to address communists and Marxists who grew up in America, but didn’t elaborate on what it would include.
He wants to propose a "Final Solution" to a problem that he is helping fabricate, manipulating the general public with phony outrage and resentment. Why does that sound so familiar?
It must be nice to live in a world where you appoint your own judge. It’s time for Smith to take action. A judge can be removed in “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This is not impartiality.
He hasn’t filed anything yet. She was way off base asking for jury instructions so early. Not to mention the PRA pre-trial defense was struck down without prejudice, meaning the defense may use it in the trial. Removing the trial from the calendar entirely is the icing on the cake.
If something is denied without prejudice it means it was denied for some sort of procedural reason. As the underlying question of law hasn’t been ruled on, you are free to refile after correcting whatever error got it denied.
If something is denied with prejudice, it cannot be refiled as the judge made a judgment on the legal claim and denied it on that basis.
He has absolutely pushed back on her requests and challenged her decisions. He hasn’t done anything to get her removed yet. That would be filing a motion for recusal based on lack of impartiality.
Or the fact the other real estate fraudsters who admitted dont convict Trump of the crime we are also doing!
I can’t say nothing will happen to them as I thought, nothing would happen to Trump and here we are.
I also have a biy more respect for giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. If Trump would of been stopped before his presidency, due to all of the reason any previous candidate would of been disqualified. We wouldn’t be here either.
Sure! In summary the political process would of discarded Trump as a candidate before reaching office. For reference there was a politician who dropped from running because he had a weirdish yell played across the air.
Then you have Trump in office, having never divested from his companies, from day one Trump was in violation of a crime. Now here is where the rope comes into play. Trump was playing the gambit of not bring charged while in office which allowed him to believe he could keep delaying the clock.
Now due to his corruption, he has taken down the GOP, that party is slowly imploding, judges, politicians he has exposed the entire grossness of the system.
So short rope, no insurrection maybe… Long rope and it leave a wider wake of destruction. RNC downfall, GOP splitting up…
They LITERALLY WROTE DOWN that they did not want this. WTAF?
The Establishment Clause: Found in the First Amendment, it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over another. It has been interpreted to mean that there should be a separation of church and state, preventing the government from promoting or endorsing religious beliefs or practices. 2. The Free Exercise Clause: Also in the First Amendment, this clause says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that the government cannot pass laws that target specific religious practices or beliefs and cannot hinder individuals from practicing their religion freely.
I always heard the argument that the founders did not want a Christian based nation because they saw the chaos in the UK with Catholics fighting Protestants, vice versa and every time a monarch ascended from the opposite side it was the axe for you all of a sudden.
They were probably mostly Christian though, at least outwardly, and so wrote the constitution with Christianity informs ideals and morals.
That said, separation of church and state is a good thing. Anyone arguing they actually wanted a Christian nation is intentionally ignorant (or a fucking idiot).
So idk if “we the people” is intentionally rejecting God as much as it’s rejecting the king.
Most of them, at least the ones most responsible for drafting the Constitution, were deists, as was common for intellectuals during the Enlightenment. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Monroe were all deists. They generally accepted that Jesus existed and he brought great wisdom of the world but they also questioned his divinity. And even the professed Christians, like Adams, were heavily influenced by progressive Unitarian principles, which did not believe in religious supremacy over government.
Jefferson was so unconvinced of Christ’s divinity that he edited the New Testament down to what he considered to be the wisdom and took out all of the supernatural elements.
I mean just look at early politics. There were many factions that went to other parts of the colonies to establish their own religious center. But others wanted to keep it separate. This is well documented in so many colonies.
Likely they were also considering the 30 years war, especially with a few of the colonies having explicitly been founded as religious settlements, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Mass especially.
I’m not defending the argument below. It is patently stupid.
I have heard people make the argument that the founders didn’t expect non-christian religions to become prominent in the US. That they thought they were only protecting the right of people to practice any kind of christianity they want to practice.
They think that the founders didn’t have enough forethought to realize that people of other faiths might migrate to the US or even the presence to realize that there were already non-christian faiths being practiced in the colonies.
The Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796 by President John Adams:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I’m not so sure on this one. Supremes, even Trump appointees, like power and influence. Trump has already come out and said he isn’t going to be bound by law which means they effectively will have no power anymore. The salary of a Supreme Court justice isn’t enough to live on lavishly. Just as Justice Thomas who lives large by being buddy-buddy with industry leaders who stand to benefit from his rulings. No power in the future, no benefits in the future.
I’ll believe that when I see it. Been told “No, they’re definitely going to hold him accountable. He’s in REAL trouble now, not like the last several decades of fake trouble he’s been in” too many times now. I hope my pessimistic skepticism is misplaced, but I’m not holding my breath.
I’m not either, but those with the decision to make lose if they give into Trump on this one. Thats a key difference to his prior decisions that went in his favor.
I clicked on this story by accident, but I’m glad I read it. There’s some real gold in here…
It said the council member cut an illegal sewage pipe — not a water line — after the food truck dumped grease into Parksley’s sewage system, causing damage.
“I’m mad at you for getting grease in the sewer…so I will cut this line which I supposedly believe contains grease so it can go all over the street, smelling great and eventually getting washed into this very same sewer anyway!”
But Henry Nicholson, the council member, allegedly complained the food truck would hurt restaurants that buy equipment from his appliance store.
“T’is but a coincidence!”
Nicholson … tried to block a food shipment and screamed: “Go back to your own country!” when Bastien confronted him.
“We did everything we’re supposed to do,” Bastien said. The couple came to the U.S. in the 2000s and received asylum after fleeing this hemisphere’s poorest nation. Benoir is a U.S. citizen, while Bastien is a permanent resident.
Several community members said the lawsuit unfairly maligns a town that has integrated recent immigrants into its 0.625 square miles (1.62 square kilometers).
Parksley has two Caribbean markets, a Haitian church and a Latin American restaurant
U.S. Census numbers show that 600 people identify as Haitian in Accomack County, with several thousand more on Maryland’s Eastern Shore and in lower Delaware. Sangaramoorthy said the region’s Haitian population likely numbers in the tens of thousands.
Sounds like this guy isn’t aware who funds this town… They must make up a large portion of the residents to have this much stuff there in this tiny little town.
“We’re waiting to see what justice we’re going to get,” Bastien said. “And then we’ll see if we reopen.”
The couple’s lawsuit is seeking compensation for $1,300 in spoiled food, financial losses and attorneys’ fees. They also want $1 in nominal damages for violations of their constitutional rights.
I wish my town was full of people as patient and civil as this couple!
She said Parksley’s Haitian food truck provided something vital — familiar foods that remind people of their homeland — to people often working long hours.
“It’s a community that is triply marginalized for being foreign, Black and speaking Haitian Creole,” Sangaramoorthy said. “They feel like they need to keep to themselves, so it’s surprising that this couple was brave to even file a lawsuit.”
Not a lawyer, but this is my understanding. To sue them, they need to sue for damages, but instead of going for some large amount that their fellow citizens would have to ultimately foot the bill for if they sue the town, they can win the case and get it in legal record that the town officials were in the wrong. The dollar is just a technicality so legal action can be taken.
I just had to correct a deed to a former property I was still getting tax bills for because the title company screwed up the paperwork, so what I had to do was “sell” that parcel of land to my ex for $1 so a legal transaction could be recorded.
You’re kidding? While i wholly understand expedience vs whole-lot-of inconvenience, would the time company not be responsible for correcting their own error, has you pressed it? Assuming you had proper documentation, of course.
Hah, this process took 8 years, 3 title companies, 3 banks, and a district judge! Thankfully it didn’t cost either me or my ex a cent to my knowledge.
It’s a very long and boring story about the most amicable divorce ever, but in the end, the title people made things right. All I had to do was write a letter to the collection agency lawyers every year saying “I ain’t paying shit” and that was the end of it until the next year for me. I’d send a copy of the bill to my ex and she’d pay it as should have been the case to start with.
I’m glad you can read through atrocious autocorrect, which never seems to happen until I actually hit the “send” button, or at least until the particular autocorrect leaves my vision.
I’m equally impressed with the amicable divorce (a pity most can’t be, we all make mistakes or deliberately screw up, but can’t as immediately or willingly resolve things equitably).
Interesting sub note, having complained that autocorrect didn’t falsely correct anything until the word was not visible to me, I actually saw it change “equally” to “implicitly” or some other nonsense. My phone can spy on me enough to prove me wrong, but not correct it’s own incorrect behavior?! And Big Tech want us to trust them it won’t HAL us?!
I feel your pain. Since switching to a new phone last year from a pretty old one (S8 to Pixel 7) I feel autocorrect has taken a huge step backwards. It seems I need to correct at least a word a sentence, and even after that, I still have to edit my posts like 3 times as I keep finding weird stuff.
My ex’s dad died suddenly and I wasn’t ever really good with emotional things (undiagnosed depression) and me not being able to give her the support she needed made her decide she needed someone different in her life.
I didn’t blame her for that, and it led to me finally learning to get the help I needed, and I came into my now-girlfriend’s life at a time she was about to get into a really bad state, and this time I was able to support someone exactly how they needed, so it all worked out for everyone involved.
Fixing my depression turned out to be extremely easy, and it made me regret half of my life almost immediately for not getting help earlier. My gf’s issues have been much more complex, and took about 2 years to dial in right, but she went from basically a total mental breakdown, and now she’s almost ready to graduate from college. Whatever help any of you may need, just either take the first step to do it, or stay with it even if you feel it’s not working yet. The only thing you’ll regret is not starting sooner!
What a beautiful story, brought tears to my eyes. I agree. I’m happy all of you found strength and happiness during the melee .
I went through some horrific stuff last year and lost access to my therapist about the same time as the crescendo of crap. Funnily enough, I stopped wanting to die, stopped wanting to survive. I came to desire living and thriving. All by myself (that just means I’ve not met anyone romantically, friends and family are still in active illness and/or addiction), so far. I’ve gotten busy being my own therapist and doing the shadow work. Maybe years of therapy HaVe me the tools to stop playing and get on with it. I’m not finished; Uber sue (<— that WAS “there have”) been blind spots and set backs. I’m sure there are more to come. I’ll continue anyway, and hopefully if therapy and medication are needed, we’ll have evolved society enough to make it accessible to anyone and everyone who needs it. Blessings to you, your current and ex. You all sound like lovely souls. Please hug each other for me, if appropriate.
I’m glad you’re still doing all that you can do and you’ve been able to apply what you’ve learned from what you’ve been through so far.
My gf’s online support group just disbanded, but a few of them have kept it going as a Facebook group and still meet at the normal time. The original was free to her, I think her therapist had directed her to it, so maybe you can get someone to point you in the direction of free resources if that is the issue.
You seem to be ready to make sure you get better. That was the big turning point in both of our stories. I wish the very best for you, and keep doing all you need to do to keep moving forward!
Hey thanks so much! I am doing so much better, mainly because it was sink or swim. I was about to be released until a series of ungodly events, so I just look at it as a detour. I’ll definitely keep the online possibilities in mind, we can’t predict or control the future, despite our best attempts. And I’ve largely stopped trying and just do what I can, today. I still hope and plan, of course, with understanding it may be necessary to scrap all that and rework my ideas, along the way. Tbh, that’s been my biggest liberator, imo.
Hi thank you! I won’t. Was thinking maybe I could look into online groups just as support from those who recognize what passes for normal isn’t necessarily healthy, and to keep me grounded and not let me kid myself. Thank you for your support and the suggestion, I intend to use them well! I’m proud of you and your irl people, too. It takes a great deal of courage and strength to recognize issues, let alone address them with honesty.
It isn’t easy, but so many of us go through it every day, yet we still feel alone in it very often. I’m not ashamed of getting help, just about my time thinking getting help was wimpy or not necessary, so now I just want to help take the stigma out of it.
I feel that to the core. People stigmatize getting professional help, but it’s the healthiest that actually seek help honesty (eg not to avoid consequences of behavior). We need to spread that message.
What’s really shameful is expecting those around the sick* to get sicker, so the sickest feel better about their illness, rather than allow them to feel sick long enough to seek wellness.
If you told people you’d be sick for months or years with any other condition besides mental health, people would say why the hell haven’t you seen someone. Mental health and addiction as well seem to get that help discouraged, at least publicly. It’s weird.
I suppose a functioning addict can kinda play it off as just part of their personality. Mental health I can’t think of a way to spin it as something “cool.” Mania or brooding, maybe, but not so much a fun characteristic in a friend the more time goes on. But many will just abandon you at that point rather than try to steer you to help.
Maybe. I think where I am, addiction isn’t addiction unless it’s worse than mine, and “what do mean, ‘mental illness?’ THAT’S normal and you’re the weirdo!”
I’m not saying it’s correct, just that people confuse “normative” with “inside healthy parameters” all the time!
I don’t think I know too many people that would qualify as “normal” to begin with. We all need to put a lot of work into our outwardly happy lives, some just more than others. The main thing is just that we keep doing those things for ourselves to make us the best we can be in our situations.
Oh my gosh! No, I’ve very much enjoyed conversing with you and hearing about amicable solutions to everyday life! I just fail at posting coherently from my dying phone. One day I’ll type my password in on the laptop; off my phone doesn’t completely die first. I’m lazy af in certain ways. Most ways, tbh.
Eta: you’re welcome, and please forgive my asininity!
You have to make a demand for damages. Asking for $1 makes it symbolic more than anything. A jury can still go “Screw that, pay them a million bucks” though.
Sounds like this guy isn't aware who funds this town... They must make up a large portion of the residents to have this much stuff there in this tiny little town.
I was curious about how this approach differed from gentrification and thought I’d leave what I had learnt for other curious people.
It seems the main difference is in displacing the existing residents. The improvements suggested by the article are small things that help the community. Gentrification would be the other way around where shiny new homes are built to attract wealthier residents and then the area is improved afterwards to accommodate them, pricing out the existing population.
It’s a small change in the approach to improving an area but it makes a big difference.
The very poor and very rich pay very little tax relative to their income. By lifting people up to a decent income, making them taxpayers, it would seem help everyone. I don’t get the incentive to keep anyone poor.
Plus I’d rather have a cool Haitian neighbor than some snooty person. Haiti seems to get especially screwed over by both people and nature, so those guys deserve a break.
The very poor are held up as a threat to get people to work in ahit conditions for bad pay. The economy requires a certain level of unemployment in order to function. Too high and the wheels don’t turn. Too low and employers lose leverage, then people might start to unionize.
Did anyone think for even a moment that this illegitimate “supreme” court would rule in good faith? This court serves only conservatives and billionaires.
This court is a conservative roach motel. It should be tossed into the deepest part of the garbage.
While listening to the hearing this morning, I was taken by the overall consensus and impartiality of ALL the justices (though Barrett does sound like a child who’s in way over her head). I was surprised most by Jackson’s line of questioning which seemed more opposed to the ballot removal than anyone else.
This isn’t about conservatives - conservatives are the one’s suing to keep him off the ballot. It’s about the Constitution and state rights.
If you’re interested in the actual legality of it all, rather than the “politics”, I would encourage you to keep away from biased media opinions, click/rage-bait headlines, and (it should go without saying) social media. It’s actually an extremely interesting case and this article you are commenting on without reading is a great place to start.
Conservative and liberal justices alike questioned during arguments Thursday whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again
A lot of it appeared super obvious to me over the past few months but the justices and lawyers are bringing up some interesting perspectives I would never have thought of.
Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a constitutional provision that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”
Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”
You and I and the internet can argue all we want about whether he should be permitted on every sate ballot (I presume we’re in agreement of the preferred outcome) but, I’ll assume, neither of us are lawyers, state counsels, or constitutional scholars. And it seems that there’s a discussion about ‘being on a ballot’ and ‘being inaugurated as president’ are the same or not. Perhaps he’s on the ballot and wins the election only to find the electors can’t vote for him. Yeah - it’s weird AF.
Not arguing anything other than that the aftermath of him being on the ballot, winning, and then being told he can’t take office would shatter this country
I fully agree, but if the implementation of the penalties to breaking a law are structured in such a way that the damage caused by not enforcing them is equal to or less than enforcing them then we’ve already lost. Even if it weren’t Trump if a candidate is allowed on the ballot and can’t legally win what is the recourse after the election? Was there any choice at all? Do we do a flash election?
I’m seriously asking because if that’s the case I don’t see anything resembling a decent future for anyone under any of the remaining options besides democrat and Biden landslide precident changing election
Imagine the uncertainty the Biden campaign could spread (they won’t because they are bad at their jobs). The American public would be so frustrated with any ruling that did not address how the ammendment should be applied.
Kagans reasoning is so fucking stupid. No one has the right to run for president and kicking one person off doesn’t “decide who is president” it means they’re not qualified. If I was 34 and tried to run they would say I’m not qualified…not that the state was deciding I couldn’t be president.
Exactly. Saying that one state doesn’t have the right to make the call is basically saying they can’t enforce constitutionally based rules. If that is the case then everything would have to go to federal court, and the states would have a lot less control over their own electoral process.
Well I’d note that technically speaking what they’re saying is NOT that states may not decide who can be elected president but rather that they cannot decide who runs.
One of trumps arguments is that he can run and be elected and appear on the ballot EVEN IF he is not eligible for president. Isn’t that great?
The constitution is very clear about who is eligible to be president.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Constitutionally, aside from those who don’t qualify, yes everyone does have the right to run for president.
There are a couple arguments regarding “the office” and “an official” and “participated in an insurrection” that may or may not disqualify someone from being federally permitted to “be” president or permitted to be on a state election ballot. States already have different rules to make it onto a ballot. Just in the past couple weeks, Biden wasn’t on the NH primary ballot (he won as a write in).
If all the red states decided they didn’t want Biden on the ballot, they could decide who would be president before the election even took place. To prevent that from happening, it needs to be determined what the rules are and the legal precedent needs to be established for state courts to decide the legal battles.
We all know what happened on January 6th. But there’s a lot of people who want to misrepresent that history. I can’t believe this is the case but it is now reasonable to assume that a state could make up new history and say Biden was a participant in insurrection or guilty of treason and disqualify him from being on the ballot.
If all the red states decided they didn’t want Biden on the ballot, they could decide who would be president before the election even took place. To prevent that from happening, it needs to be determined what the rules are and the legal precedent needs to be established for state courts to decide the legal battles.
This would require the state courts to all agree and then the Supreme Court to concur. Colorado isn’t getting the final word on who can be president, they’re dutifully interpreting the Constitution, making a ruling, and then letting the highest court in the land review it. It’s like the Maine case writ large, it needs to start somewhere, but just because that case started with a single person making a decision doesn’t mean that’s the whole process or that the process itself is illegitimate. There’s nothing unilateral about this, but the Supreme Court sounds like it wants to dodge responsibility for deciding whether Colorado is right or not by questioning whether they should have even been able to start the process.
Saying “Congress could just do the thing the plaintiff wants” is their tried and true dodge for things they know quite well can’t or won’t be done by Congress. They’re quite happy to implement law without Congress’s help when it’s something they want and quite happy to pretend they’re just deferring responsibility when it’s something they don’t.
Hey, just chiming because we might both get downvoted to hell for this. After reading your comments i have altered my mindset on this somewhat and i agree that this is a presedent you dont want to go over easily. Its a knife that cuts both ways an can be used to cut you, once both parties see its possible. It would also be a funny moment when people vote for a canidate in their state, only for their spokesperson to not be able to vote for said canidate, making him, or her, not the president.
Whatever happens, the power hungry of all sides need to follow the rules, and just like everything about trump is a fucking presedent that we need to analyse and handle very carefully…
when people vote for a canidate in their state, only for their spokesperson to not be able to vote for said canidate, making him, or her, not the president.
Agreed on the careful handling. With how partisan so many issues have been in the past few years, I can see this opening the door to more significant incidents in the future. Not to go “tin-foil-hat-civil-war,” but I can see an example of Massachusetts, New York, and California doing XYZ while Texas, Georgia, and Florida have done ZYX that’ll just add fuel to the fire.
Look at the diversity of states’ positions after the overturn of Roe v Wade. It has eerily similar vibes as free and slave states did 160+ years ago. Ugh, at this point, it’s time for me to meditate and read a book or something to relax.
Congrats on reading part of the applicable sections of the Constitution. Now read the one that actually applies here.
The part about insurrection. It is already clear based on congressional oversight of the executive branch that he is an insurrectionist. That’s what the bi partisan j6 commission determined. There is no need for the courts here at all as nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted.
In fact former uses of this law didn’t require a conviction. There’s already case law supporting that fact.
I understand all that. I believe the issue is how this is handled. Is it up to the states? Is it up to congress? Is it up to the presidential electors? Is it up to the DNC / RNC? Who’s the entity that determines who is and is not on the ballot?
As I think I understand it, the issue at hand is if a state has the authority to unilaterally bar a ‘presidential candidate’ from a ‘general election ballot’ for this reason.
Does the state get to determine on their own that the candidate is illegible? What is it in the state’s constitution that says so? Shouldn’t such a fact be established on a federal level to prevent the candidate from appearing on all ballots? These things aren’t clear in the constitution.
Noticed this in your other comment and thought it was a typo but now you’ve forced my hand lol. Illegible means not legible, as in scrawled handwriting or bad print that is too sloppy to read.
If all the red states decided they didn’t want Biden on the ballot, they could decide who would be president before the election even took place.
If a state wanted, it could just decide to let the state legislature pick the electors and not hold a popular vote at all. The US Constitution just says that each state appoints electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” It’s only state laws and state constitutions that create requirements to let the people vote, so a state could repeal those for itself unilaterally.
For example, here’s the relevant section of law in Georgia (OCGA § 21-2-10):
At the November election to be held in the year 1964 and every fourth year thereafter, there shall be elected by the electors of this state persons to be known as electors of President and Vice President of the United States and referred to in this chapter as presidential electors, equal in number to the whole number of senators and representatives to which this state may be entitled in the Congress of the United States.
(“Electors of this state” means the voting public, while “presidential electors” means the people getting nominated to the Electoral College.)
All GA would have to do is repeal that paragraph and then the General Assembly could pick whatever presidential electors they wanted, public preference be damned (at least until the legislators themselves were up for re-election).
If a state wanted, it could just decide to let the state legislature pick the electors and not hold a popular vote at all.
I was surprised this wasn’t raised as a counterargument by the Colorado attorney when the “one state could determine who’s elected” argument was made. (If it was, I missed it.) The justices are worried that states (let’s just say it: “red states”) could make up some frivolous reason to keep someone off the ballot and disqualify them, but the brutal reality is that they could do it already by screwing with the electors. (Hell, Trump and his co-conspirators tried sending fake electors from some states.) Setting a precedent allowing states to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment just give states another way to accomplish this. “Oh, Biden tripped walking up to a podium? That’s insurrection!”
What’s really sad/outrageous is that Trump and the GOP have so terribly warped and perverted the political norms in this country that we have to even consider the possibility of states fabricating frivolous reasons to keep someone off the ballot. We can’t keep a 91 felon count indicted insurrectionist, fraudster, and rapist from getting elected and destroying democracy because his friends may avenge him by abusing and misapplying the law in the future. This really sucks.
Well, one argument is that the clause is self serving and Trump does not need to be found guilty of a crime to be disqualified. Another (ridiculous, imo) argument is if the person holding the office of the presidency is an official.
We don’t need that. We have federal definitions for insurrection, and participants on Jan 6 have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. It was a violent act to interfere with the constitutional transfer of power after a legitimate election. That’s insurrection, and Trump supported them. None of those facts are in dispute.
Then should a small federal subcommittee screen all candidates on the state’s behalf before they’re placed on the ballot?
I think finding ourselves in the position where a candidate won the popular vote but the electors are unable to vote for him, that would be a blunder as a country at best, cause an uprising among all the disenfranchised voters at worst.
Also one of their arguments that you left out is whether or not the POTUS is an officer of the United States… Which I think is an obvious YES! He is the commanding officer of the military, and as a veteran, I was trained that the POTUS was an officer.
Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”
A single state didn’t decide who gets to be President. A single state decided who qualifies to appear on their ballots under state law, as all states are entitled to do.
Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”
Bad faith slippery slope argument. Colorado passed a law and took the case to court where the State Supreme Court made a ruling. If there’s another state where the State Supreme Court has both the authority and the audacity to disqualify a candidate for partisan reasons, those justices should be charged with treason against America.
…If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must include the other religions stop and take those down.
At the moment, SCOTUS treats no belief as a separate religion. In our life times we are going to have to aim for the more achievable “all religions matter”.
…If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must…
…stop and take those down.
Out of curiosity, does the earlier post’s strikethrough for the part I’ve now removed show up for you? I’ve heard that some apps don’t handle all of the formatting options particularly well.
What is the formatting used to denote strikethrough on lemmy? On Kbin it looks like it's ignoring it, but it has double tilde as a supported strikethrough formatter.
FWIW, I’m reading this thread in a Firefox browser on a PC and only the bolding works for me. I see the double-tildes at either end of what should be struck out text.
So, looks fine to me formatting-wise. I read the intent to be that (1) they’re quoting you, and (2) they’re conveying a government building should not be a place for religious iconography, at all.
I’d be happier if there would be no religious presence in government buildings too, but alas, the SC has ruled for what we’ve got. So I suppose it’s nice at least that we’ve got TST to help ensure our governments aren’t playing favorites
I’d put it on par with trespassing into a church and breaking the crosses. It’s destruction of other people’s shit because of the religion it represents but with no additional implications
It’s not for any 4 star generals. The Republicans still want to hold the senior leadership under their boot for a potential military involvement in the elections.
Before you decide to downvote me, this is openly called for by the orange dictator in training who has put pressure on the military. Gen Milley called him out for this
They’re going to sell this to the promoted troops as “that promotion that senator noob tube got you” to divide the military so they can kick off a real civil war, and guess who the military industrial complex is going to support in that war?
I don’t feel bad for the guy, but I don’t celebrate this sort of vigilante justice, either. Prisoners should be safe from other prisoners. Prison is not meant to be torture, and recidivism is a massive problem in the United States. Chauvin will have 20 years to contemplate his crimes, and treating him and every other prisoner will only reinforce their criminal proclivities.
yup. And there is a reason why laws are written to disproportionately affect certain groups- like how crack cocaine gets more jail time than powder, or marijuana convictions…
FWIW the vast majority of prisons in the US are not corporate run (>90%), but those majority government-run prisons still provide a lot of free/cheap manufacturing labor to private companies.
The government itself is to blame, not just private prisons.
Loopholes are things intentionally built into structures with the purpose of allowing something through. I find it weird so many people think loopholes aren’t something intentional.
I’m having a lot of trouble finding a source that backs up this position. Everything I’m reading says that loopholes are typically oversights, not intentional inclusions.
That being said, the 13th amendment’s allowance for prisoner slavery is not a loophole at all, it’s an explicit allowance. Loopholes are not explicit, that’s kinda the whole point of them. It’s a bit like saying that the standard deduction on your taxes is a loophole. It’s just an explicitly defined feature.
While that, in fact, does happen, when a large portion of loopholes benefit corporations are written by people employed, or otherwise invested in, those corporations you would have to be lying to yourself, or ignorant of the situation, to believe loopholes are generally unintended.
The above is one example of how this is done. Bills are written to model what the industry wants to get out of legislation. Then they use LLMs to construct legislation after being trained on those models. They then collude to push these bills to as many places as possible, greasing palms the whole way. Sometimes these are just out-right legislation for the purposes of enriching the industry, more often though they are bills written with carefully designed language to allow for specific technicalities, or for stipulations of compliance to be so vague as to be unenforceable, or to use a bunch of jargon and complex linguistics to make a law read one way to the laymen, but another to the professionals that will actually be interacting with these laws.
i think you’re responding to a normative statement by making a descriptive statement.
for those unaware, here’s a quick explanation from wikipedia: a normative statement is “meant to talk about the world as it should be”, while a descriptive statement is “meant to describe the world as it is”.
Edit I’m fuckin stupid, leaving this comment up as a monument to my illiteracy
Making a comment like this about basic conversation and debate concepts is like driving and saying you can’t read the speed limit signs. Like, maybe you should avoid actively participating altogether until you’re actually able to
i wasn’t trying to talk about grammar at all, i was only trying to focus only on the meaning of what was said. but i probably could’ve made my point more clearly, so ill try to do that now.
here’s an “example”: one person says “things should be done this way” and the other person says “well things aren’t being done that way”. these two statements aren’t in opposition to each other. in fact, it’s perfectly possible both people agree with each other. maybe things aren’t being done a certain way, and they should be done differently.
the terms “normative” and “descriptive” might seem overly complicated to someone who hasn’t seen them before (they did the first time i saw them), but i thought i’d use them because they’re useful concepts to keep in mind. they’ve helped me communicate and resolve conflicts in my own life. i’ve been both people in the example above, and it’s helpful to be able to know when it’s happening.
Human creativity gets maxed out when you literally have nothing to do but sit in a cell all day for years. Just because someone is a criminal doesn’t mean they are completely stupid.
I have often wondered how many actual geniuses have been chewed up by the worlds prison systems. If only some of those people had gotten a fair chance in their life to have their skills developed in a healthy environment… It’s depressing to think about, actually.
Doesn’t that prove his fuckin point? Even in something as locked down and controlled as fucking prison can’t stop humans if they truly want to harm others
I was just making the joke initially, a contrasting oversimplification.
But just because they don’t stop all violence, it doesn’t mean they don’t stop any violence. Prisons literally do keep murderers locked up instead of out harming others in the public. Are they flawless systems? Fuck no. There’s all kinds of shit wrong with the systems. But they definitely beat the alternative of having no prisons.
to be fair, the united states doesnt care about the humans it pretends to 'rehabilitate'. we dont care about recidivism, because our system is for punishment not for rehab.
other countries do a better job at fixing their humans than we do. can we start there?
You think prisons are locked down and controlled? Prisons are for-profit labor generators where slaves are treated like, well, slaves. Society accepts this because we act like they deserve subhuman treatment. We should not accept this.
In theory, yes, but that should be the point of education and social programs tbh. Even then, restorative justice models don’t rely as heavily on jail/prison. Temporary and maybe permanent removal from a specific environment doesn’t have to require fully sequestering perpetrators from society. Caught early enough, extreme examples of violent individuals can be rehabilitated through house arrest and other programs like anger management, therapy, etc. Saves taxpayer money, reduces recidivism, and victims report much higher satisfaction as they can actually face their perpetrator and be more involved in the process seeking accountability.
In practice, prisons prop up class and racial segregation, perpetuating capitalist agendas.
Yes, our prisons should be safe for those who are confined within them. I agree with that, and that less people should be confined in the first place.
But there is a qualitative difference between "he was stabbed due to being a cop (or due to being THAT cop)" vs "He got into an altercation that resulted in him being stabbed, but which could have happened to anyone."
I think the kneejerk assumption is that he was targeted, which is worse IMO.
Not that I shed a single tear for the fate of Derek Chauvin, mind you.
Would you rather be in an unsafe environment where you are taking the same risks as anyone else by being there, or an unsafe environment where you are likely to be specifically and personally targeted for being you?
The idea of “not killing” and “I wish he was dead” can’t seem live in most people’s head. I think he’s human waste, he should be dead, and I wouldn’t have lamented his death. BUT!!! I don’t want him to die and I don’t want someone to kill him.
One guy wants to work on Civil rights, taxes, and social services.
The other guy wants to jail anyone who said mean things about him, suspend the constitution, and immediately apon being sworn in use the military to institute the insurrection act and declare martial law.
Who said anyone was happy about that? Biden made the wrong choice. But to wring your hands and pretend you’ll have a choice that isn’t Trump or Biden next November is completely ignorant of how elections work in the US.
He is also walking a tight rope attempting to defuse it. He got the border open with Egypt and humanitarian aid in. He got “humanitarian pauses” in place of a cease-fire because Bibby won’t allow it.
You don’t need to walk a tightrope on genocide. We give them the weapons they use to kill civilians and shield them from international consequences. We’re not an uninvolved party trying to influence an equal, we have power.
That’s an absurdly simplistic view that you can only afford to have because there are no consequences to you having it. Were you actually in charge and had briefings explaining the complex history and political situation then you’d very likely find yourself realising it’s not as simple as you wish.
“We’re acting like Republicans on this because the situation is just too complex for your puny mind to comprehend.” - Centrists, about every fucking thing.
Yes. He did. Choices can lose you votes. Demanding them doesn’t get them back. Pointing out the other option and being like “he’s worse now shut up and be happy” doesn’t do it either.
I prefer Biden to Trump. I’ll vote for him. But I accept the reality that “not Trump and shut up” isn’t good enough for some people. People whose votes we need. The options for the country are very likely gonna be Trump or Biden.
But as far as I see it, the options for the Democratic Party are as follows: Do better or lose.
I’m worried that they’re not willing to change at all and would prefer to lose, even if that means Trump again.
Really because the ones I see not changing are the white cynics who are so high on their privilege that they seriously need it explained to them why “not trump” is fucking good enough no other explanation needed. Especially after Dobbs.
Fuckin’ white self proclaimed revolutionaries talk a shitton about solidarity then don’t waste a second to demand bribes for theirs soon as literally the bare minimum gets asked for to vote just so fucking Caligula Jackson doesn’t get to strip everyone else’s rights more.
Fuckers throw Letters from Birmingham around like gospel and do no self reflection about MLK being up to his limit with white folks who swear they’re for civil rights then don’t do any of the work to advance the cause.
Here, I’ll quote the portion of my comment that you ignored because you were in such a screaming hurry to pontificate:
I prefer Biden to Trump. I’ll vote for him.
But yeah, don’t let that put a damper on your self-righteousness. The party is owed everyone’s votes no matter what genocides they fund, and even people who overtly say they’re voting the way you want for the reasons you state are gonna get a earful of centrist karening.
Because god fucking forbid the party adapts to a political reality when we’re at risk of falling to fascism.
No…no we don’t. The centrists are looking at the US and know we are fucked. We stopped pretending politics matter after Bush stole his first election and Obama couldn’t come through with universal healthcare.
He’s just getting the not Trump vote…and in 4 years when nothing changes, the next D will promise all these sweeping social things that somehow never manifest.
I’ll eat a shit ton of new tastes for their inaction though.
It’s because politics matter that Obama couldn’t pull it off. Obamacare was what he could pull off with exactly 60 senators, before deaths dropped the number. If we wanted to have universal healthcare, we needed to expand our numbers in Congress.
Instead, apathetic voters led to a huge conservative victory, and made it impossible for universal healthcare to happen.
There’s a very important lesson here. Not voting for a Democrat in the general election because you wanted them to go further with their policy doesn’t get you those improvements. Instead, it gets Republicans to win and drive policy in the exact opposite direction.
And therein is the vicious cycle of voter apathy. The gridlock and status quo of the Obama years was because voters didn’t show up in 2010. They didn’t show up because they wanted more accomplishments, which required more senators. And voters who were too apathetic to vote in even 2008 caused that.
It depends by how much. If it’s a thin majority, I imagine it will be like it is for Republicans this time around (hamstrung by the loud minorities within your party with an axe to grind). If it’s a solid majority, I think we’d actually see some good changes.
Given what appears to be reflexive party line filibuster with no limits, they’re not doing much legislatively without either a supermajority or a dozen or so Republicans who decide to be constructive or to do things for their constituents.
Remember that historically there was usually at least some crossing the aisle. If you were the guy bringing over the vote to make or break, you have a lot of say over details
Sure, and they will once again scapegoat a couple individuals knowing most people don’t pay enough attention to to know it’s like 30 in the House and 8-10 in the Senate who are gladly blocking anything meaningful.
That’s something that needs to happen in a really obvious way. All those scapegoats need to be on full display - especially if they changed their previously stated views. Then maybe people will start understanding they need to actually show up to their fucking primaries if they want to make any effective progress in the future.
All these comments about “letting it all burn down” are just long-term reinforcing the idea that status quo centrists are the best candidates to run against fascists. Progress won’t happen until people vote in primaries.
C’mon, you knew that was going to happen when you posted it. That’s what always happens when you say anything remotely critical of the left on the internet (well at least lemmy and Reddit)
Idk why people can’t accept that it’s possible for both sides to suck ass, even if one is worse. The right being worse doesn’t make the left good, just better.
I’ll vote for Biden, but you can lick my ass if you want me to pretend to be happy as I do it.
C’mon, you knew that was going to happen when you posted it. That’s what always happens when you say anything remotely critical of the left on the internet (well at least lemmy and Reddit)
I wasn’t being critical of the left. I was being critical of Democrats.
As someone who was centrist: you can’t be centrist when one person is motivated by spite to tear it down. You aren’t a centrist anymore. You’re an accessory.
Liberals are always the first to fall in line with fascists - the first regional governments of the Nazis in Germany was supported by libertarians and pro-economy-parties, a couple of years ago. 3 years ago the Neo-Liberal party in Thuringia accepted to govern as a minority-government when the only party supporting them was the far-right AfD with a leader that you can legally call a fascist and that is under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz for being a danger to democracy.
The CDU (moderate-conservative party) in Germany also won’t work with either the left party nor the AfD but their local politicians are already getting very close with the AfD.
If someone’s claiming “both sides” in a political issue that’s usually a sign that they won’t oppose the fascists when they try to grab the power
Liberals are always the first to fall in line with fascists
“Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is how the saying goes. In the US right now there is no real left political force, despite there being many individual leftists. The one thing the political system has done there above all is remove all impediments for capitalism to flourish. That goes back to the Populist movement and Jim Crow order, Eugene Debs, the Taft-Hartley act, removing any notion of class analysis from academia. Now you have the choice between how you want capitalism to be branded basically, is it Democrat happy everything is fine capitalism, or GOP get rich or die capitalism, but it’s bootstrap policy all the way down.
At the end of the day, someone who sees both sides as the same is saying they don’t care about LGBT people or abortion rights or ethnic minorities. It’s impossible to care about them and still believe the two parties are close enough that it won’t matter who wins.
Doesn’t matter if they’re a self described communist or crony capitalist. Scratch them and a fascist will bleed.
Not in the US but I kind of apply this to the Democratic party itself. Obviously they aren’t outright fash-branded like this GOP faction and strategically voting for them is like a forced thing at this point, but they are objectively a center-right party, and I believe the economic policies they promote are in effect an accessory to the GOP’s. What’s more is Democrat PACs actually give money to run ads on behalf of the most fash GOP primary candidates as part of a strategy to get them easier opponents, and it’s worked before, but it also directly enables that faction to gain more ground over multiple election cycles. Like Hillary wanted to run against Trump, they helped him get the nomination, how funny would that be if the GOP had Trump as a candidate, they’d be a laughingstock!
I feel like this whole thing is a downward spiral with two factions that aren’t really even offering economic alternatives at this point because the neoliberal market based “freedom” is basically consented too. It’s like do you want the happy Democrat branding of this or the fashy GOP branding while it all spirals out of control.
I generally give Republicans more benefit of the doubt than most. I consider myself a liberal libertarian with an open mind to all things. I think there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump the first time around, reasons that much of the country chose to ignore because it was easier than addressing them.
If the GOP nominates Trump again, they deserve to lose as hardcore as possible. I didn’t scream and cry when he was elected because I was willing to give him a chance and an open mind. But I think his first term said everything that needed to be said about his suitability as a leader. He talked a big talk of draining the swamp, but then filled his cabinet with alligators and no swamps were drained. If anything, swamps were created as he filled key positions with corrupt people who were loyal to him but had little experience or skill for the job at hand.
Love his policies or hate them, that’s just corrupt bad government. And while I don’t always agree with Biden’s policies, much like Obama, he at least executes the duties of his office in a relatively competent manner.
Same thing if DeSantis gets the nomination. You can’t run a platform of jobs creation when you pick a hissy fit with your state’s largest employer because they dare voice some mild opposition to a policy of yours (especially when said opposition is essential for said company to maintain credibility on the national level). That speaks volumes about the kind of person, and the kind of leader, that you are. I would rather have someone who’s policies I sometimes disagree with, then a childishly vindictive psychophant sitting in the big chair.
Sadly, this all is the very predictable result of the Karl Rove strategy- whip up social conservatives and evangelicals to drum up votes. The result is those groups now have significant power within the GOP, even though their platform of intolerant policies is unappealing to the broader nation to the point of making them unelectable in the eyes of many.
I said there were plenty of valid reasons to vote for Trump. For example, if you wanted American manufacturing, the idea of a tariff on Chinese goods was appealing. If you favor border security he was your guy. If you favor gun rights Hillary sure as fuck wasn’t for you. Etc etc.
And overall- Hillary was a very ‘middle of the road status quo’ candidate and the nation wanted real reform. Trump represented change- perhaps not good change, but change.
Not arguing the merits of any of those points. Just saying if you want those things, his platform was the more appealing one.
Following him would reveal plenty of good reasons NOT to vote for him also. Dishonesty, misogyny/sexual harassment, tax evasion, borderline racism, and a lot of his rhetoric felt a little too close to Hitler’s for my taste.
Personally I didn’t vote for him- I voted 3rd party (in my solid blue state of CT, my vote doesn’t matter either way). But I could understand why people did, and I had hopes- I hoped that either when he won the primary or the general the ‘yuuuge!’ personality would go away and the intelligence a lot of people claim he has would emerge, and we’d be left with, if not a true statesman, someone approaching a mature adult who would get to work solving the nation’s challenges.
As it stands, what we got was pretty close to what his critics had claimed would happen- a Presidency full of scandals and corruption, with his own loyalists placed in key positions they were wholly unqualified for. And from what I’ve read, it was widely known in foreign intelligence circles that if you wanted him on your side, just book a few million bucks worth of boondoggles at mar-a-lago and kiss his ass a few times and he’d be your buddy. Obviously not what we need in a President.
But that’s all my point. Going into it, there were valid reasons for wanting him. Now, there may still be desirable items on his agenda, but he’s proven himself ineffective at implementing any of those items. So now, this time round, I’d say if you vote for him (especially in the primary) you’re a moron because you’re putting forward someone Biden’s almost certainly gonna crush, who was disappointing the first time around and arguably treasonous.
What I mean is Trump is a known liar and conman. Anyone who knew anything about Trump knew he was lying out of his ass, and wouldn’t do anything he promised.
Honestly part of the reason I gave him benefit of doubt is a few conversations I had with someone who worked extensively on a real estate project with Trump They said Trump did some slightly underhanded shit that screwed some people over, but it was obvious he had a very sharp mind and was thinking far ahead of anyone else at the table; that the ‘yuuge’ personality was a smokescreen to look stupid so people didn’t realize how truly sharp he was. The person I spoke with lost some opportunities as a result of Trump’s underhanded operations, but ended up with strong respect for the guy as a businessman and a leader. The person felt that if Trump used his capabilities on behalf of the nation, we’d all benefit.
I was hoping we’d see in the White House some glimmer of what the person I spoke with saw in the real estate deal. Unfortunately we did not. Or if we did, it was only in service of Trump, not in service of the nation.
And while Trump may be a known liar and a conman, when the opponent is quoted as saying you have to have a public and a private position on issues (in other words, lie and tell people what they want to hear) it’s hard to worry too much.
Had Biden been the nominee he’d almost certainly have beaten Trump. Or Bernie, he’d have done well.
Trumps genius is in his ability to sell himself. The guy got bamboozled by a known fraud, conman, and narcissist.
It’s not like he came out of nowhere, his bombastic dishonesty was no secret, and he made it crystal clear during the campaign that he had nothing to do with honesty and truth.
While I hoped he would change his tune when he became president, and held out hope there, it should have come to zero surprise that he is who has always been and giving him the “benefit of the doubt” was being extremely generous, if not outright naive.
Anyone giving Trump any sort of benefit of the doubt even in 2016 could only generously be described as extremely ignorant. Trump had even at the time an extremely proven track record, and all of us proclaiming doom and gloom if he got elected were proven right over and over. The only surprise from any of this is that he didn’t start a war and instead just managed to create enough instability to lead us where we are now with Israel/Palestine and especially Russia/Ukraine. Like, there was a lot of us telling everyone exactly what was going to happen in 2016, whether that was Roe, the racist immigration shit, the threat of a pandemic, the growing wealth inequality, his ability to handle something like Hurricane Maria, etc. We knew he was a rapist then. We knew he was a conman then. He had already mocked the disabled, military families, called hispanics murderers, rapists and drug dealers. He already and still maintained the Central Park Five, who’d long been exonerated, should have been put to death. Fuck’s sake the only reason he started running basically was because he got a lot of attention for the birther bullshit which tbh wasn’t even a dog whistle and he might have just as well had a klan hood on during that whole thing.
I’m not sure if it’s more an indictment of the media, the education system, or just Republicans working for generations to do exactly what they have that literally anyone could give him the benefit of the doubt.
Even in this very thread, we’re doing their work for them. Biden’s been a fairly successful president by most normal metrics, and the only thing the media (and half of this thread) want to talk about is that he’s old. Meanwhile, Trump is actually, routinely now showing that he’s losing his faculties and he’s a spry 3 years younger with the diet of a frat party at 2am and the exercise regimen of a russet potato, but yes, let’s really dissect if Biden’s putting out an international fire fast enough as if the alternative in Trump wouldn’t be literally to throw matches and gas at the problem.
To drive your point home, and I’m not sure if it was here or another thread, but a guy was effectively defending "muh both side”-ing this because democrats hadn’t passed universal health care. Lol it’s insane that this is the discourse now.
Exactly. Democrats are expected to be adults, while Republicans are treated like toddler’s that have just been given an 8ball and a 6 pack. Like, I saw a non-ironic headline basically saying that keeping the government open was a win for Mike Johnson. Meaning, literally doing their job at all is some kind of a win. And, of course, was he able to do it because he was able to unite his party and get things done? Of course not, it took the adults bailing him out and capitulating because everyone knows if the government was shutdown the story wouldn’t be that a Republican majority can’t even keep the government open, it would be that Democrats didn’t get on board and bail them out.
Don’t disagree with any of that.
The person I spoke with was so impressed because he (and the others in the deal) were specifically protecting themselves against any Trump shenanigans, but the way Trump changed the whole plan showed he was thinking many steps ahead of them.
But he turned out to be a one trick pony- his trick is screwing over everybody (perhaps in very clever ways) to boost his own power and wealth. The whole selfless part where he does it for the good of the nation, that never happened.
Step past your hatred of the guy and look for some nuance my friend.
The person I spoke with didn’t like Trump, but admired Trump’s sharp mind and strategic brain that could out-think a lot of very smart people. Their belief was that Trump is sharp as a tack but just pretends to be an idiot so people underestimate him.
Being the smartest guy in the room, being able to come to a negotiation and sweep the board when nobody sees it coming is never a bad quality for a President. THAT is what they respected-- the ability to do that to a bunch of very smart people.
Well there were a table full of people saying ‘we know Trump can be slimy so we’ll protect ourselves’ and it wasn’t good enough. So I guess they’re all idiots.
I think it’s fair to argue that if you know Trump has a reputation for screwing everybody over, the only non-idiotic move is to stay the fuck away from him. So that’s probably fair grounds for calling them idiots.
That Trump chose to screw everybody over makes him a narcissistic conman without empathy or morals.
The fact that he COULD do it, even to smart people who were expecting it and thought they’d prepared, is arguably a sign of intelligence.
That he chooses to use whatever intelligence he has screwing everybody over rather than solving real problems-- that’s back to narcissistic conman without empathy or morals.
You can be a narcissistic conman without empathy or morals, and still be smart.
Ya. Ignore the genocide. And the strong history if being against gay marriage and abortion. And the doing nothing to address the codification of Roe v Wade. And the standing against cannabis legalization so we can keep jails full of peaceful poor people.
Why would anyone have reservations against voting for that guy.
Don't worry, they'll just use the opportunity to say "Well, the Democrats won't be any better. I'll just not vote in the Trump Dynasty Monarchy Referendum"
Bullshit. Objective reality exists, and Biden isn’t a fascist. You are not entitled to make shit up.
More to the point, you are not entitled to spread fascist propaganda (your concern trolling is obviously designed to help Trump). You are anti-American scum and you are not welcome here, or anywhere.
Biden has adopted key plays from the fascist handbook
This is pure bullshit.
How about you ignoring Trump and co openly proclaiming that they want to do away with democracy and actually taking concrete steps to do so? Do you think that’s a better alternative or do you just want to sit on your hands and say “oh well”
I mean this honestly, and not attacking you in any way. But I'm incredibly intrigued as to how you believe The Biden administration is fascist as well. And again I'm coming from a place of just wanting to understand, not attacking you.
Fascist has a very specific meaning. Most people left of center do not use it as a blind pejorative, but because the people they use it on meet the literal definition, per Wikipedia, Umberto Eco, etc.
If you think “fascist” describes progressives in any way, shape, or form, then you have drunk deep of the rightist Kool-Aid and have no idea what the word actually means.
Emphatically supporting a genocidal authoritarian while rejecting the plight of the oppressed. Cheering for the nationalistic gain of committing genocide on an impoverished peoples for the benefit of the nation. Demonization of ANYONE that doesn't support the genocidal leader.
I would absolutely love to see examples of anything youve mentioned. And no, random morons on Reddit, Lemmy, and Twitter don't reflect the actions of the Biden administration.
You seem to be very confused about a number of issues. Biden is no progressive, nor is he even slightly a leftist in any way, shape, or form. He's a center-right liberal. Do not confuse that with the extreme, radical right... they are not the same. Liberals often ignorantly enable rightward drift (which can eventually lead to authoritarianism and fascism), but that does not make them literally fascist themselves... it just makes them short-sighted and ignorant.
I understand that you seem to be upset by the terrorism and mass-murder being conducted by the Israeli government against Palestinians right now, and Biden's complicity in that ongoing slaughter and terror by ostensibly supporting Israel and failing to denounce their brazen, continuing war crimes... but even that, as vile as it is, does not make him a fascist.
As much as leftists like myself hate Biden for being a cowardly status-quo-protecting late-stage-capitalist puppet, he is no fascist. Biden does not meet any of the defined criteria for fascism. Fascism and even generally tyranny and authoritarianism are a very serious threat, and must not be taken lightly or conflated with other issues.
Words do have meaning, use them correctly and find the appropriate words to express yourself. Sometimes there is no convenient label to lean on... that's fine, you don't need labels for everything... find a longer way to express yourself. "Terrorist-enabling coward" comes to mind.
Which genocide is it that TransplatedSconie supports that would have been countered by "multiple deranged tweets at 2 AM from the president that cause nothing but chaos"?
In a similar vein, I happen to enjoy a president fighting to push forward infrastructure and green energy funding despite a 0-vote majority and two wolves-in-sheeps-clothing included in that.
You know, the same way Obama made Obama care happen.
... Obama made Obamacare happen based on an overwhelming election victory leading to a (tenuous and temporary) 60-vote majority which allowed him, over the course of months of negotiation to deliver an extremely watered down version of just his main campaign promise, the one, focused policy that he unambiguously emphasized more than any other policy.
I don't say this as condemnation of Obama. I say this as 'what the fuck do you think Biden is working with in comparison'? What's his one goal that he should be working towards? What's his supermajority? What did his election victory look like? Approval numbers?
So if Biden can't do shit because of congress, why will Trump be able to do anything?
Because the GOP wants to do fucking dogshit things. Did you miss the whole "2017-2021" period or fucking something? 'Obamacare' was within one vote of being repealed, and only survived because a cancer victim had a last-minute crisis of fucking conscience.
You know, the same way Obama made Obama care happen.
This is a fantastic example. Obama started the term with 60 senators, and Obamacare was the most left thing they could pass. To get them better policy, they needed more senators so they could bypass the Manchins.
Except, voters were apathetic. So Democrats lost big time. It led to gridlock in Congress and solidified a status quo where you had to compromise with Republicans to get anything to happen.
And voters were apathetic about that. And Trump was elected.
The way we make Obamacare and better happen are crushing Republicans in the polls. Not bemoaning how things could be better. Because staying home has only made this country move further and further right.
Biden actually pardoned all federal convicts of marijuana possession. You can apply online at this link if you know anyone. He also began the process for re-classifying marijuana as Schedule III, though there's a lot of bureaucracy to get through so that's slow.
How about we give Biden credit for things he actually does, instead of more campaign promises he certainly won’t follow through on?
Day 1 agenda voting rights act, never happened. Locked in Trump corporate tax reductions. Has always wanted to plunder social security and abandon the program. Literally drools at the opportunity to “compromise with republicans” to achieve this feat. He’s a moron, the world’s worst negotiator, or the perfect lapdog of the ruling elite - take your pick, but he’s sure as shit not FDR 2.0.
This is who Biden is, so when you proudly vote against the bad orange man (a fascist wannabe tyrant to be sure), know who you’re voting for
Biden can sell it all he wants but the Legislature has to pass it
Locked in Trump corporate tax reductions.
Responsibility of the legislature
Has always wanted to plunder social security
We do need to deal with that election hasn’t in the room. We can’t control the deficit without controlling the biggest parts of the budget. More importantly, it’s sort of like climate change where the earlier you address it the easier it will be but at some point becomes too late to prevent serious repercussions
opportunity to “compromise with republicans”
He did campaign on trying to bring things back together, work together for the good of the country. I give the guy credit for trying more than I would have
Follow-up question, after 2020 what steps did you take to ensure or at least influence the available choices you would have in the coming 2024 election? Did you write your local comparative left-leaning parties, presumably including the Democrats, directly to voice your dissatisfaction and interest in more genuinely progressive or leftist party platform policies or policy makers? Or did you work with a better suited third party to increase their viability through community canvasing and outreach programs? Did you start talking with others in your community in the beginning stages of starting a bid for candidacy yourself to be the change you want to see directly? Not to be rude, I mean that genuinely, but did you do anything other than complain online, maybe in a few conversations in real life as well?
Because here’s the thing, your criticism is absolutely both correct and valid. But we are now a year before the election, well into the primary season. If you haven’t actually done anything to make the situation better, then you’re kind of armchair quarterbacking critiques about the playbook of a game that is already in half-time. I’m sorry to be this blunt, but you missed the window. I truly hope you do get involved and care enough to make sure a terrible candidate like Biden isn’t the only viable option in the future, but the time to start putting in the work to ensure a decent candidate appears on the 2028 ballot is today.
Make no mistake, it is absolutely terrible and miserable that campaign cycles are so long and that the political system is so practically impenetrable that we have to waste so much time on this shit and think long-game like this. Fucking miserable situation. But that’s how it is. No amount of standing on principle or taking the easy way out by abstaining and blaming the consequences on others will change that. It sucks. I hate it too. But that’s how it is. The reality is that Joe Biden is a shitty candidate but if you are even halfway decent you understand the alternative is objectively worse in almost every measurable way. Yes, voting for the lesser of two evils is terrible bullshit. But when you can’t solve a problem outright, wisdom is prioritizing harm reduction. The choice is obvious.
But seriously, start fucking work today making sure we aren’t right back here again in 2028.
edit: to be clear, I don’t know you, and I understand that you may genuinely be involved already. I’ll admit I am speaking in generalities to a broader audience than to you personally, and do apologize for any presumptions I have made about you in doing so.
Why are hospitals in Gaza under Israel’s crosshairs? Why? Is it truly that difficult to step back and think for a moment about why Israel would want to erase the current populace entirely?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted… Israel an ethnostate, and what we’re seeing here are the early stages of a genocide. Look at any other ethnic cleansing in history, and you’ll easily see the parallels.
Calling a state an Ethnostate doesn’t mean you’re saying the population is entirely of one ethnicity. It means one ethnicity is given a privileged status above all others.
Israel was founded when Zionists purged Palestinians from their homes and forced them into Gaza and the West Bank in order to create a Jewish majority state. That makes Israel an ethnostate by definition.
Ahh I see. So because Zionists haven’t been able to successfully cleanse all Palestinians from the region, Israel doesn’t count as an ethnostate. Don’t worry though because by God they’re still trying their damndest to make it happen no matter how many thousands of children they have to murder.
Well, I'm not sure early stages fits, that's calling for a group to removed and Israel has been bombing water wells, while monopolizing all water supplies and providing only dangerously! small amounts of unclean water. Without question, this has caused unneeded deaths. Simmiliarly for electricity and food supplies.
You know, I was trying to tread lightly, lest the Zionist apologists show up to try and redefine “genocide”.
But the reality is this:
Tens of thousands of civilians are being murdered (shot, bombed, starved, water supply poisoned) by Israel’s military.
Israel is an ethnostate which believes that their race makes them god’s chosen people.
One of the Israeli government cabinet members has declared that the Palestinians in Gaza must be eradicated, and that he would drop a nuclear bomb on Gaze if he could.
When you use the U.N.’s definition of genocide (“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”), the picture is pretty clear.
Absolutely. I hope I didn't sound pedantic or talking down, my intent was just to have more details higher in the thread in case some of those zionist shit poster tolls take over the bottom. You're 100% right on every point and I wish you weren't.
War does not automatically equate to being a genocide just because people due. Otherwise, every war in history would.be genocide.
There are Arabs & Palestinians that serve in the IDF too and have killed Palestinians. There are other Arabs in Jordan and Syria who have also gone to war against Palestine.
You are using incindiary rhetoric to win an online argument, but your description doesn’t fit the facts.
Do you realize that the population of Gaza grows by over 50,000 people every year? Even if we accept the casualty figures provided by Hamas (and I don’t) then unless this war goes on at its current intensity for another four months (which it won’t) the population of Gaza will actually increase rather than decrease in the one-year period that includes the war.
The idea that the war in Gaza is “[erasing] the current populace entirely” is disconnected from reality.
*18. The blockade started in late 2005. Just clarifying because Israel likes to claim that the blockade started in response to the scary Hamas government launching rocket attacks.
That's a false dichotomy. They are killing them as fast as they think the international community will tolerate. They won't kill them fast enough to provoke any major entity into opposing them, they will just stay firmly in the "everyone will wag their fingers at us and argue about whether it's right" zone, which is where they sit currently.
They are killing them as fast as they think the international community will tolerate. They won't kill them fast enough to provoke any major entity into opposing them, they will just stay firmly in the "everyone will wag their fingers at us and argue about whether it's right" zone, which is where they sit currently.
So the fact that this leaves open the possibility that some people get to flee their homes in terror, knowing that their friends and loved ones who refuse to be chased out of their homes by Israel are likely to be killed by the IDF, is one of the things that you feel might convince me that Israel doesn't have genocidal intent?
And what will make you believe genocide isn’t the end goal?
But that’s impossible to argue. You can claim for any ratio that it’s a silent genocide as long as even a single citizen is killed. And we know a war without civilian casualties - even forgetting the situation of Hamas putting civilians forward as shields and even killing some themselves. Where do you draw the line?
Instead of examining the facts, you’re opting for an easy cop-out that requires no proof and cannot be disproved.
I didn't say no conditions anyone would accept, I said no conditions you are going to accept. You wouldn't be carrying water to this level if you would.
Civilian casualties aren’t the same thing as genocide.
genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
When a country with access to the full destructive power of a modern-day military (including nuclear weapons) fights a war in such a manner that at the end of the war there will be more enemy civilians than there were before the war, it is entirely unreasonable to claim that genocide or any attempt to commit genocide is taking place. You might as well call it cannibalism or pedophilia - those are also really bad things that Israel isn’t actually doing.
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to support your own narratives. I just wanna let you know that I think you are a cold-hearted person, and I hope that you, your family, or your people will never be thought of, as you are thinking and/or talking of the Palestinians right here.
They are deliberately bombing hospitals, schools and people fleeing. If you cannot open your eyes to see this, but rather argue about the technicalities of semantics to feel better, I wish you good luck in life.
Even if we accept the casualty figures provided by Hamas (and I don’t)
I don't know why you wouldn't, unless your justification is just your own bigotry.
One snippet out of a lengthy article.
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements.
“Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “In the times in which we have done our own verification of numbers for particular strikes, I’m not aware of any time which there’s been some major discrepancy.”
Shakir said Human Rights Watch would not use figures provided by parties with “a propensity to misrepresent information.”
Throughout four wars and numerous bloody skirmishes between Israel and Hamas, U.N. agencies have cited the Health Ministry’s death tolls in regular reports. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Palestinian Red Crescent also use the numbers.
In the aftermath of war, the U.N. humanitarian office has published final death tolls based on its own research into medical records.
In all cases the U.N.’s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies.
— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385.
— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251.
— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256.
You do realise that the birth rates will slow down during the conflict, right? Who's going to be having a baby when the nearest hospital is being shelled? Assuming of course that both parents even survive.
That 50,000 per year won't hold for this duration and I won't be surprised if it shrinks to below 1,000 by the time Israel is finished.
I can’t imagine ever having such a cynical and apathetic worldview. All of this death is acceptable to you because more children will be born? Because they’ll be replaced?
Set a reminder on your calendar for March, and we’ll take a look at the news at that point. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be surprised. While you’re at it set a reminder to get some therapy too, christ
Israel doesn't wanna wipe out Gazans; that's just unrealistic. However, a sizeable part of the Israeli government is very much fine with expelling them.
Yeah, I mean there are people in the Israeli Government calling all Palestinians (not just Hamas) “animals”, others who say that Palestinians won’t be allowed to get back to Northern Gaza and there’s even a member of that Government who seriously suggested Israel should nuke Gaza.
And then, of course, there is the long track record of Israel doing things like murdering journalists and killing Palestinian kids throwing rocks at their armored diggers, especially under governments with these same people in them.
People who have a track record of murdering journalists and children, bombing hospitals full of those they see as “animals” which they want to see dead or out of Gaza, and then providing to the World some unverifiable excuse that blames somebody else and doesn’t even pass the sniff test when it comes to proportionality in the use of force is hardly out of character, especially because History has various examples of people who think like that going full on mass-murderer in similar ways.
I don’t know why people insist on this narrative. Isn’t the truth horrible enough? Hamas is allegedly using hospitals as shields, which is horrible. Israel is willing to kill countless civilians to get at Hamas, which is also horrible.
Because it’s what Israeli politicians and government officials actually believe. They aren’t even quiet about it. It’s genuinely not hard to prove the genocidal intent of the Israeli government.
Unfortunately western media just tends to gloss over it all. I’m not sure if reporters can’t fathom the US supporting ethnic cleansing or if they just want to avoid the flack they’d receive by being honest. Either way, it’s unfortunate because well meaning liberals are left to assume Israel genuinely cares about stopping Hamas and aren’t using them as a pretext to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip.
Unfortunately western media just tends to gloss over it all. I’m not sure if reporters can’t fathom the US supporting ethnic cleansing or if they just want to avoid the flack they’d receive by being honest.
Please watch a documentary that covers any of the previous foreign wars the US has been in, especially those that came about before the internet boom (or better yet, one before and one after). I personally like to recommend the Panama Deception because it’s free on youtube and pretty short and succinct (only 90 min). On top of that Panama is still currently dealing with the issues started and maintained during the “wars” discussed in that documentary (I don’t knowing if you’ve seen about the ongoing Canadian mining protests).
The documentary covers some of what happened obviously, but it also shows some of the news airing at the time from the biggest American news channels that were covering the wars and how they covered it. You’d be amazed at what was claimed at home vs what was happening overseas. The MSM may as well have been a third arm of the US government. As much as they like to pretend to be neutral on domestic affairs which the people watching would easily be able to criticize, it should really be no shock to anyone that they’d mostly be parroting US gov talking points when it comes to foreign affairs.
apnews.com
Hot