This is really the first piece in the media that I've seen acknowledge that, for the protesters, it's no longer so much about the app and it's all about Reddit's ugly and dismissive response.
It's like going to your boss and saying 'There's a problem with the working conditions and we need to make a change' only to have your boss say 'This isn't an issue and I'm not going to fix anything and you're just wanting something for nothing, like you always do... quit being such a pussy or I'll fire you'. The complaint might have started out about working conditions but as soon as your boss goes into asshole mode, it's going to be about what he said to your face. And that's why at this point it ain't going to matter what Reddit says about how this is about an app, and why it won't matter how many 'official spokespeople' it runs up the flagpole to pretend that Spez wasn't patronizing the folks who generate all his content for free and making naked threats to the mods who keep the fora running for free.
There'll be a lot of people who will end up being too disinterested or callow to react to all this, and that's their right. For others, Reddit was kinda a huge chunk of their day and their social existence and they don't want to walk away from it, and that's their right too. I don't think this is going to be the end of Reddit so much as I think it will be seen as the beginning of the end. But there can be no question that the real problem isn't an app anymore, it's the scrawny-ass CEO and his weak man's idea of how a tough man leads. Because threatening the mods isn't a show of strength, it's insecure weakness. Steve Huffman just doesn't have the chops to be in his current role, let alone in charge of damage control from the protests.
The only good thing about any of this is the unintentional irony.
There is a lot of people suffering with a cost living crisis in the world right now. And he just put a massive target on his back. For a lot it won't be about the issue anymore. It will be the case of having the ability to poke one of the haves in the eye. I believe the best anecdote for this is crabs in a bucket. People want him dragged back down with the little people.
I think this is an underrated point. There's a lot of money stress out there right now. There's a lot of people with jobs who have anxiety that they could lose those jobs. There's a lot of Redditors who have come to see Reddit as an online home and a community that values them. All that anger and fear and stress is just looking for an outlet. And here comes the smug CEO pressing all three of those buttons at once?
And I'll take your point one step further. Pretend it's three months down the road, this has largely all run its course, a bunch of people have left for good, and you are one of Reddit's primary investors. Your analysts tell you that you have lost 40% of your investment due to this debacle and that unless Reddit takes some steps RIGHT NOW to win its user base back and show the mods they're listened to and valued again, you're likely to lose more. These people will happily sacrifice Spez in a cocaine heartbeat under such conditions. A little public pillorying while they blame Spez for everything, a little faux contrition from the board and a promise to do better, the appointment of a CEO with some charisma and people skills who will lead some foo foo initiative to look into user complaints and do a little grandstanding -- this is the playbook.
That really is an elephant in the room with capitalism these days. There is zero protection for the individual and money is king. Although all of what you surmising is down to who owns the controlling influence. Provided he keeps enough shares for himself to retain the final say, then he is safe from that one. I personally think he has done enough to have lost the credibility of the platform now. He will most likely have to postpone the floatation plan.
Agreed. Lots of discussion is still naturally around API pricing etc., but more fundamental is the fact that all of that user/mod-provided community is seen solely as an asset for the company to sell. The actual humans be damned.
it’s the scrawny-ass CEO
CEO aside, I reckon you could replace spez with any other exec chosen by the board and eventually this sort of business decision would be made. The mix of private ownership and profit motive suffices, I think.
100% this final point. It’s not spez, it’s the motivation of all companies geared towards investors and markets. They don’t even care what they actually end up producing, as long as it gives the appearance of profitability and growth. Spez is a largely replaceable part in this equation.
I agree that on one level Huffman is a fungible element serving predictable motivations of moneyed investors. The idea that one should leverage every last cent one can for the maximization of shareholder value, this is certainly common thinking in the business world and will always have its champions among the richest and most powerful sources of investment. So in this regard I think I am in solid agreement with the two of you.
I disagree because I believe Huffman's antics in the press have been extremely counterproductive, much more so than what you could expect from a typical CEO of a billion dollar company. If he had just taken the line from the beginning that goes 'look, we're ad driven, we need to become profitable, and we can no longer afford to let third parties give Redditors an ad free experience or subsidize AI training at no cost' -- this would not have exactly been popular, but it would have gone much better than they did with the hack job on Selig and the smarmy doubletalk about working with people who want to work with them. Or his patronizing dismissal of the protests as 'noise' that 'will pass', or his garbage about landed gentry and people wanting things for free, or the insecure threats about how mods will be removed and replaced if they don't open their subs back up, or how he plans to emulate what Musk has done at Twitter. I don't think that's something you get no matter who's in his place. I think most other people in his position would not have fired quite so many rounds through their own foot and in so doing, damaged Reddit quite so much. So in this regard I think Spez is an atypical case, I think he has royally screwed up, and that his idiosyncrasies aren't doing his employers any favors at all.
Yeah, even if somehow the API changes were financially the right move, I cannot see how stuff like his comments in support of Musk helped one bit. I haven't seen any news coverage that puts reddit in a positive light either. At best, it's been neutral.
The CEO chooses the strategy for making money, though. I think the strategy Spez chose is a losing strategy and that reddit would have made more money by not alienating their users to the point of a bunch of people migrating and another bunch purposefully trying to sabotage reddit's profit.
That's not entirely correct. For-profit companies thrive when they serve their customers well. Since Reddit's for-profit and yet its users are not its customers, the result is bad for users. But that doesn't mean companies with better business models are equally bad. The beautiful thing about a free market is that competition drives bad companies out of business.
That might be true if we lived in a world where companies behaved like that. But given that they now answer to shareholders and the admitted priority above all others is to squeeze every possible cent out for those shareholders in the short term and that ignore long-term health, I don't think the principal really applies any longer. Public companies or companies courting IPOs are literally not permitted to behave in the way you describe.
Also the free market is a complete myth. The market is constantly manipulated and distorted by those controlling the capital via methods such as monopoly, monopsony, trusts and vastly disproportionate "influence" over law makers and potential regulatory power.
We agree on the damage caused by short revenue reporting requirements for public companies. Just remember that private companies have share-holders too. The fresh fruit street vendor is a tiny business with one or more share-holders, competing against massive supermarkets.
About free markets being a myth, yes well there's no true Scotsman. The guiding ideals of the concept of a free market are still in effect, despite all of the valid exceptions you listed. Fact is, Reddit can still be driven out of business.
When the news first broke I was like aw darn I guess I gotta give up RIF. But I thought about it for a bit and just realized it would be so terrible to go back to the reddit app, because I have actually tried to migrate there before.
Then the entire reason + response emerged which totally pushed me off the platform for good.
This was my thinking too. I was sad, maybe I’d try out the official app and see if it would work for me. Then I saw how absolutely deranged and unprofessional spez was and I turned to Lemmy and haven’t turned back.
Yeah, I figured that I would still check Reddit on my laptop, maybe try to suffer through the mobile app. And now I have decided to quit Reddit entirely. It’s no longer about the API and Apollo for me. Why should I stay on a platform that shows contempt for me?
I barely even used mobile, so I just used the official mobile app when I did. Uninstalled now. Still peek in because there's some good resources there that simply do not exist conveniently elsewhere (and sometimes habit or checking out malicious compliance by various subreddits), but barely posting/engaging and turned ad block back on.
Amen. I figured I'd just give up on mobile reddit. Browse more on my laptop. And then the AMA happened. Fuck that guy. What a pompous asshat. If he feels that comfortable talking to and about people like that on the very platform I don't even wanna know how he treats people in person.
No system of government can withstand 50% of its participants being bad actors.
I honestly don't know how we get out of this situation without aggressively litigating politicians that have committed crimes. That requires overwhelming political will, though, and it's obvious now how important Fox News and Right Wing radio has been to creating an atmosphere where that will doesn't exist.
Of the population, sure. But I meant of the actual political actors in the system, Republicans make up about half as they are overrepresented when compared to the population.
The way to bring Republicans to heel is for them to keep losing until they give up and try something else.
Between 1860 and 1912 exactly one Democrat - Grover Cleveland - managed to be elected president; Woodrow Wilson ended that streak in 1912 in no small part by breaking with his party to embrace progressive reforms (though the intra-party GOP split between TR and Taft also helped), and while Wilson was one of the worst racists to ever inhabit the White House, that embrace of progressivism nevertheless set the stage for the era of Democratic dominance under/after FDR.
What dominance. I have seen 8 years of reagan, 4 of bush sr, 8 clinton, 8 bush jr., 9 obama, 4 trump, and getting to 4 biden. The majority for me has been unfortunately republican.
I honestly don’t know how we get out of this situation without aggressively litigating politicians that have committed crimes.
I think this would actually make the situation worse. Donald Trump has successfully made a mockery of our entire justice system, by convincing half the people in this country that the cases against him are a big conspiracy theory/witch hunt while also trumping up (no pun intended) charges against his own political enemies and getting the GOP to support him.
Now take the fact that the overwhelming majority of people accused of crimes in government right now are Republican – Trump and all of his lackeys, the multiple judges on the SC accepting bribes, George Santos being George Santos (or whoever the fuck he is), Gaetz sleeping with underage girls, etc. etc. etc., and there’s absolutely no way you’d be able to aggressively litigate politicians without adding metric fucktons of fuel to the belief of those on the right that such charges are little more than political witch hunts.
And while the obvious reply to that is “Their opinions don’t matter, we should be pursuing justice”, you are correct. But you’d also be ignoring the reality that there are a whole hell of a lot of them and they are willing to turn violent if they truly believe that an ongoing series of charges against GOP government officials are politically motivated.
Then what are our options? Just lay there and take it? Because I swear if I have to keep eating fucking dirt just to get by while these pigs treat our society like their personal body pillow I’m going to lose my god damn mind. If such blatant disrespect for our society and judicial system continue stability will begin to collapse.
I have no idea. That’s well above my pay grade. All I’m saying is that Trump has spent the past 7 years telling every inbred redneck in 'Murica that the radical left was coming to take their guns and their rights and their religion and the entire system is rigged and they want to censor and jail you for your free speech. Now follow that up with seeing their almighty god-emperor doing a perp walk in an orange jump suit followed by an endless parade of his cronies. If you think that’s gonna end peacefully, I’ve got some bad news for you…
I don’t. I’m thinking this is one of those times where the background noise has escalated to a bloody scream and the time for good endings has passed. The thing is, in a truly civilized society, you don’t end up here. We are much closer to our primal states than we all want to admit and the emperors in charge are just now being truly seen in their new clothes. I don’t know the question, but I do know the answer that will follow.
The biggest lesson they learned from the Trump administration is that if you don’t act ashamed, you must not have done anything wrong. This has opened the floodgates on blatantly unethical and/or illegal behavior.
I doubt they will rule in his favor, or at least hope that is the case. The more likely scenario is that they’ll play for time. They refused to take the case early a few months ago so that it would be forced into a lower court. That court took it’s time and is now complete with the obvious ruling. Now the SCOTUS will take it up and sit on it till November.
This is doubtful. The Supreme Court fully understands that ruling the President has absolute immunity will serve to permanently undermine their own power. There is no material benefit to the Supreme Court in waiting to rule on this case, and every reason for them to make a hasty decision affirming the lower courts finding or simply refusing to hear the case altogether. Regardless of their own personal politics, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will make ANY rulings that serve to undermine or limit the authority of the judiciary.
You’re absolutely right. It’s highly unlikely they’d rule in his favor. As you said, that would give any president absolute power and that’s not agreeable to the court who, after overturning Chevron, will wield a lot more power themselves.
I hope they refuse the case. It would have been smart for the judiciary as a whole to do that a long time ago. Let trump face trial while they still had another viable candidate in the race. However, the strategy in all of his legal fights has been to drag this out as long as possible in the hope that he becomes president and it’s all null and void. Thus allowing him to never face trial and the court to never rule either way.
Now the SCOTUS will take it up and sit on it till November
I'm doubtful they'll sit on it. As you said, they already indicated a lack of desire to pick it up last time Trump submitted an appeal to them on this basis. I'm pretty sure everyone is expecting a repeat performance here. Remember the rule of four would apply here and I'm sure Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Roberts would do exactly the repeat as before.
There's just not the numbers to play petty favors for Trump here.
Don't be silly. They believe that the president would only have total immunity until they were impeached by Congress. So Biden would also have to execute anyone in Congress that would vote for impeachment. After that, he should be fine. Totally normal democracy in action.
That would be the most ridiculously stupid thing could do, it would be even more horrible and abhorrent than what Trump has ever threatened.
So, no.
What he could do, on the other hand, is unilaterally have him removed from any consideration for public office. And that would be perfectly sufficient. 
Joe Biden could also just revoke Donald Trump’s citizenship, which would then make him ineligible for office, and then deport him from the country. That would be simultaneously effective, and also completely hilarious.
Joe Biden could also just revoke Donald Trump’s citizenship
no, he can’t. there are extremely narrow circumstances under which that can be done, and this situation doesn’t warrant them. and, for, like, a zillion reasons, Biden shouldn’t exercise any extra-legal powers to do so when other options exist. (such as the one I mentioned).
That would be simultaneously effective, and also completely hilarious.
not a good enough reason, considering the multitudinous and catastrophic consequences.
To be clear, we’re talking about jokes being made about what Biden could do if the supreme Court grants the president unrestricted unilateral total immunity for all actions legal or otherwise.
So in the event that the president isn’t restricted by the rule of law or liable for the consequences of their actions, there’s a lot of things that Biden could do that would be advantageous for his personal political aims.
I'm honestly flabbergasted by the people, including the justices, who make the argument that Colorado betting allowed to disqualify Trump would lead to a landslide of other states disqualifying other people for partisan reasons.
He was being disqualified for aiding an insurrection! If that would apply to any other candidate, then yes, disqualify them too! That's the fucking point!
I'm okay with them trying to explain how he did and then having to prove it in court when it's obviously challenged, sure. I'd be down for them making a fool of themselves.
And assuming a state court of competent jurisdiction ruled that he was engaged in an insurrection and therefore banned from the ballot, you’d be okay with that too, right? Even, say, if that court system was composed of ultra-conservative judges?
The argument is that only federal court can do that, not state court. Which means there souls be a federal case to do so. Why there is no such case? Or is there one?
The part that’s troublesome is the “giving comfort of aid to the enemy”. Florida was in the process of crafting such an argument to the Florida Supreme Court which, given their friendliness to the current governor, would have removed Biden from Florida. I’m sure Texas would have had something similar related to give aid and lax border policies (at least lax in their eyes).
Without a higher power specifically defining what rises to disqualification status, each State would get to set the bar and lots of States would have set that bar super low.
I mean hell, given Alabama’s Supreme Court recently used the Bible for justification in a ruling. Biden giving aid an comfort to the devil doesn’t seem far fetched for disqualification.
No. This is absolutely something we don’t want States to start getting creative about. If Trump violated Federal law, which we’ve got a Federal law the pretty much says Trump should be disqualified, then it’s the Federal Courts that need to rule that, which the Supreme Court indicated that yeah if Trump is guilty under 18 USC 2383, then he can’t be President.
States being allowed to interpret giving aid to the enemy is very dangerous door to open.
I mean ultimately, I just think it’s kind of weird for a state to decide somebody’s guilty while the investigation is ongoing, and I am 100% convinced he started the insurrection. But be hasn’t been convicted of it so like…what? My state can bar me from things because it claims I’m guilty of a federal crime I haven’t been convicted of?
The whole Colorado thing was flimsy and they knew it. I think he totally deserves it. I think Colorado is correct in that they should not allow an insurrectionist on their ballot and I would want Trump removed yesterday. But again, he has not been found guilty of insurrection. So it’s kind of moot.
While the Demographia report found Gaza City isn’t as packed as the world’s most dense cities, including Dhaka, Bangladesh, which has over 80,000 people per square mile, it’s more crowded than global cities, such as London, and three times more dense than Los Angeles, the most population-dense area in the US, according to the report.
They do actually! A journalist was talking about it on Radio-Canada earlier today, he’s visited twice since 2017 (having come back a couple of weeks ago) and noted the contrast between fairly recent cars and horse carts using the same streets!
True... probably actually a benefit that they don't have cars as they're less efficient than just walking. But for those who physically aren't able to walk for hours straight (depending on how far they need to go), some alternative mobility is needed.
Ive lived through an evac or two thanks to some years spent in Florida during hurricane season.
A standard car is limited in the ways it can travel, it needs road or something approximating road so that it can travel without destroying the wheels, tires or undercarriage. If you put too many cars on a road there’s only so much distance that’ll be travelled in a period of time. Similar to a DDoS.
Walking on the other hand, well people can really just walk anywhere. You don’t need roads you just need a decent set of footwear and it’s difficult for walking to get backed up because you can just walk around someone.
Come on man, use some critical thinking and context here. He clearly is not saying that cars some kind of an issue here. He was making an idle point about traffic jams in the US with hurricane evacuations and how that doesn't apply in this situation. He's not even making a value judgement on anything here.
Who did? I was responding to someone who brought up that issue, so my response was related to their point and my comment was mostly intended to focused on how the lack of certain resources could negatively impact those who are dependent on those things.
Otoh, the the difference in travel modalities makes a big difference in what problems there are and my comparison to hurricane evacuations obviously lacked in that respect. It's only natural someone would point out that limitation of my comparison.
They know it can’t be done and they don’t care. The rhetoric coming out of their government is pure genocide talk. One of the military guys got furious that anyone cared about Palestinian civilians.
I hope the US doesn’t support this or stay silent. We need to have the balls to stand up to allies when they’re in the wrong. The world said “not again” to the holocaust and now regularly looks the other way, and it’s time countries stop letting this shit happen.
You know the US won’t. The gov’t is too far up it’s own ass and only sees numbers. Israel is profitable to us, and money is the only thing anyone in power gives a shit about. They don’t care that we’re dealing with terrorists, as long as the terrorists make them money.
Never again! Except for Tibetans, Uyghurs, First Nations in boarding schools/their forced sterilization, the Khmer Rouge, Pakistan/India/Bangladesh, North Korea, Rwanda, all the genocides by the Soviets, Bosnia…
I agree with the overall sentiment, but some of these mentions are not accurate and imo devalues the importance of such important accusations (e.g. since when was NK genociding anyone?)
“Never again” is a phrase I learned in religious school as an American Jew, in the context of the contemporaneous genocides of WWI and WWII, and the genocides that were occurring in the 90s. I understand you’re pointing out the hypocrisy of the Israeli government, but don’t forget there are a lot of us out here who recognize genocide for what it is.
It’s not a culture war issue and God damn I am so tired of NYTimes obfuscation of the truth of the matter.
Climate like so many other issues we currently face is a class war issue. The working class is going to face the fallout of environmental change, while the rich avoid feeling it effects. Mass migration north as the global south becomes unsustainable, food shortages increasing grocery prices, working conditions continuing to become unsafe as AC installation in warehouses and trucks is “cost prohibitive”. None of that will impact the wealthy, it’s exactly WHY they are currently hoarding.
Not true. The hoarding of wealth and resources isn’t purposeful in respect to climate change or any resultant global catastrophe, but simply happenstance. They hoard because greed is a sickness.
Gonna take something that impacts every single person in the country and emboldens them to act. Something like the government taking pornhub and onlyfans away on the same day.
That's the point of the "culture war" that is currently manifesting as a war against "wokeness." As long as conservatives are distracted into hating LGBTQ and minorities, the working class will be split and will not have the ability to fight against the people truly responsible for the mess we are in.
The indoctrination works exceeding well, too. I have a relative who voted for Al Gore because of his stance on the environment. Fast-forward to now, and she is posting things on Facebook supporting the overall Republican agenda (Not supporting Trump or DeSantis, but still very conservative.) Basically, a bunch of family stuff including prolonged illness and eventual deaths made her a much more unhappy person, and the right-wing propaganda is designed to pick up people like that and bring them into the machine.
This article is the flipside, it does nothing to address the true issue and only further drives a wedge to divide. If you start talking about issues both rural and urban voters care about, such as the stratification of wealth, how poor folk are burdened with the biggest tax rate and how a billionare class straight up should not exist, you will actually make inroads with people both liberal and conservative that have been spoon fed propaganda for their entire lives.
And building bunkers in places they know will have lesser effects from climate change. They know we are destroying the planet we live on and our ability to live on it and just don’t fucking care and it blows my mind.
You are correct about the wealthy but I’ve been pointing out for a while now that the wealthy also won’t have to suffer the massive inconveniences, high energy costs, lifestyle downgrades and all the other negatives of the climate change mitigation nonsense. So they fly around in jets, have mansions everywhere, yachts, helicopters, limousines and whatever else. But I’m supposed to drive a crappy electric car, live in stacked public housing, ride bikes, shut off or have limited AC usage, etc? Yeah, screw them.
This whole climate change thing is not a big seller and regular people arent falling for the BS. The ulterior motives here are strong. It’s about control, mostly.
It is an oversimplification. The supreme court distinguishes between nonverbal acts that are political speech, and acts that are just acts. It’s not the money, it is the act of giving the money. Just like burning the flag is political speech. I’m not saying that Citizens United is correct, or that we are on the right path. Even if we had a honest acting Supreme Court ready to fix everything, they’d have to tread carefully to avoid fucking everything up.
If burning a flag is political protest, why not burning crack into your lungs? It’s political speech to protest the government and its world wide drug war!
P.S. Stay away from crack and coke, dopamine exhaustion is real and fucked
I just read an article on this. It's fake. The whole thing was a sham used to push this through the court. There was no web designer or gay couple. I thought this was wierd when I read it, because:
How could some petty matter make it that high up?
How could this ever actually happen in real life, when the business can say 'oh we're sorry we can't take on another job right now.' and avoid any costly legal proceedings??? For that matter, what customer is going to hold a business legally accountable to do work? Wouldn't they just like.. find someone else who will do the work?
A business turning down paid work in this economy? Totally BS
I don't see really an issue with this, because in principle, any business can turn down work and not give a reason, or give a BS reason, so... nothing changed in the real world. There's plenty of other people more than willing to do paid work.
It's pretty bad publicity for businesses now to be labelled as 'we don't serve gays here' so I don't see how this is good for them either.
Seems to be an example of legislation that solved a problem that didn't exist.
That's the part that pisses me off the most. All of this shit is happening because of lies. And the politicians know it's all lies. They don't care. Bread and circuses for their voters.
I mean, think of the chaotic implications of letting states determine who is eligible to be on their ballots by following a federal standard laid out in the constitution.
Are you serious? So, every state in the country should just throw out whoever they wan.t…allowing their residents to ONLY vote for the people that the state government wants them too? Sounds very…communist.
This is always such a spurious argument; Republicans will do what they're going to do regardless of precedent. There was no precedent for their attempt to throw out the results of last election but they did it anyway.
Exactly. Precedents only give them more ideas, but they’re perfectly capable of coming up with them on their own. Besides, if we keep worrying about how bodies of government doing their damn jobs to kepp the R’s in line will later be abused by republicans, then that’s just giving that full control to the republicans in a lot fewer steps
Republicans straight up dont give a flying fuck about rules, laws or precedent. They will always do whatever the fuck they want to do. Damn the consequences.
Oh no they do. Their strategy is to push a precedent that fits their agenda little by little. Once they’ve got that president set they can carry out their designs more easily, and spend efforts setting other convenient precedents.
Like, they are going to continue breaking the rules. But that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t still slowing them down.
If they allow individual states to make their own “objective” legal determinations regarding what is or is not an insurrection then you will never have a democratic candidate on the ballot in any Republican majority controlled state ever again. They will take that as carte blanche authority to say that every single Democrat is a traitor to the Constitution, and is unfit to hold office.
Edit: I am following up because I realize what a contentious and controversial position this is, and I agree. However, the important thing to note is that this is the exact logic that was repeatedly broached by the Supreme Court itself. We can argue ad nauseum about the legitimacy of that body, but the bottom line is this: they are not going to allow Donald Trump to be unilaterally removed from the ballot. They are afraid of the ramifications of that decision, that much is clear. So, regardless of anyone’s personal feelings on the matter you need to make peace with the fact that the Supreme Court is going to all but destroy the protections of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. That is just the reality, and that means it is more important than ever that we make sure Donald Trump does not make it back to the White House. If he does, that is going to be the beginning of the end of the United States for the foreseeable future.
The worst case scenario that nobody wants to talk about is Donald Trump being able to pack additional justices onto the Supreme Court that are in their late 40’s who will be on the bench for another 40 years, and guarantee the further erosion of civil rights in a way that will permanently destroy any chance for reform for the rest of your fucking life. This is not a game, this is not a drill, the Supreme Court has made it clear they are not going to do the right thing. The only remaining choice is collective action through voting or mass civil disobedience. Get ready…
I was thinking this too. But let’s suppose the Democratic run states decide to play dirty (I know, I know). Now nobody gets past the post in a presidential election… Now what?
If a candidate for President fails to receive 270 [electoral college] votes, the House itself will choose the President from among the three individuals who received the most electoral votes. In this process, each state receives one vote, and it’s up to the House members from that state to decide how to cast it. The election has gone to the House twice, in 1801 and 1825.
And if the House cannot do it, the Speaker becomes President until the House elects someone.
Fine, then the civil war that’s been brewing finally kicks off and we can deal with fascists in the appropriate manner. That’s not a compelling reason to implicitly allow fascists to participate in elections after attempting a coup, which would be the message sent if this is denied.
No. You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things because Republicans are threatening to do unconstitutional things if we don’t.
Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust. What SCOTUS should do (assuming they want to find Colorado correct, which… Roberts’ Court 🤷) is issue the ruling saying Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot, then when GOP fascist states try to remove Biden, take those inevitable cases and judge them on their merits, upholding or overturning them as the facts allow.
So, Colorado determines who their residents are allowed to vote for, because THEY determine that Trump did something unconstitutional? I don’t get that…I mean, isn’t that what communist countries do? They pick and choose who the people can vote for?
First my dude, none of us “pick” who to vote for. The parties decide who to put in front of us. But you’re still free to write-in Trump if you want. Also the GOP could decide to run a candidate who is Constitutionally eligible, but they don’t have the spine/guts/balls/chutzpah/decency/insert whatever adjective you want here to do that.
Second, no, a court decided based on the facts that Trump is ineligible. Feel free to read their opinion and cite what part of the analysis you think they got wrong.
And third, my dude, think about what year you were born. Then look up every single law passed before that, going all the way back to the Constitution. And then realize that you are expected to follow each and every one of those laws, despite having no say in their passing. That is far closer to the Conservative’s boogeyman definition of “cOMmUNIsm” than the Colorado court case.
I mean, it never really should’ve gotten to the Colorado court in the first place.
And like, we already can’t vote someone under 35, or a foreign national into the Whitehouse. Honestly I think “no insurrectionists” is the most reasonable restriction of the three.
It’s called having eligibility criteria, and it’s a fact of life everywhere. You wouldn’t want a five year old driving a car or drinking alcohol, and the law addresses this. Insurrectionists are disqualified in the Constitution, plain and simple. At least Trump doesn’t have to worry about being disqualified for being a rapist or bad businessman as the Constitution is silent on both of those items.
You’re literally advocating for letting Trump do unconstitutional things
No, I’m not. I’m reinforcing the likely outcome that is coming from the Supreme Court based on their own words, and threads of inquiry during oral arguments. I don’t agree with it, but I am preparing for it. They are 100% not going to unilaterally allow Donald Trump to be removed from state ballots. If you think they are, you are lying to yourself.
Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust.
I agree, but I’m not the one you need to convince. The Supreme Court doesn’t share your impassioned desire for justice and ethics. They are absolutely going to hedge their bets in preparation for retaliatory legal action by Republican majority states who are already acting with impunity right now if you hadn’t noticed.
They’re judges. This is their job.
They are also human beings, and they are prone to irrational actions based on implicit personal biases. This is a body that, in my opinion, no longer serves its designed function and now exists solely as an abstract exercise in mentally masturbatory naval gazing that collectively sees itself as completely disconnected from the ramifications of its actions. It is literally the godhead of a profoundly sick society that is trapped in a self-imposed negative feedback loop that is unlikely to be changed without mass civil unrest.
The 15 states that did not apply are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming.
Unfortunately I’m in Texas too. Can’t wait to get the hell outta here, probably close to a year and a half and we can leave, wife wants to wait til youngest is 18 and on his own.
She’s also apparently a mother of three, which is hilarious in its own way because Republican school book bans are such that her kids could know all about Mommy’s Special Friend from the news and possibly her own behavior, but they would be irreparably harmed by reading a library book about it and that must NEVER happen.
Ohio voters approved a ballot measure enshrining a right to abortion in the State Constitution on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, continuing a series of wins for abortion-rights groups who have appealed directly to the public as they try to recover from the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Issue 1, as the ballot measure is known, had become the country’s most-watched race in the off-year elections. Both parties are looking to gauge whether voter anger over the loss of the federal right to abortion might help Democrats in next year’s presidential and congressional races. National groups on both sides of the debate poured money into Ohio in recent weeks.
The victory in a conservative state is likely to help lift the hopes of abortion-rights groups pushing similar measures next year in red and purple states, including Arizona, South Dakota, Missouri and Florida.
“It’s not up to the government to decide what we do with our bodies,” said Alissa Carver, 26, who lives outside Cincinnati and describes herself as an independent voter. “It’s for us to decide, it’s our experience.”
Wendy Pace, a 52-year-old independent, said she didn’t normally vote in off-year elections, but came out because she wanted to vote “yes” on Issue 1. “I have a teenage daughter and I don’t like having my rights taken away from me,” she said. “I fear that this is just the beginning of rights being taken away, and I do fear for my daughter and what her rights would be going forward.”
Another Democrat who simply can not grok that the MAGAts have no real argument. There’s no debate. Nothing that is said matters at all.
Years of gish galloping and we’re still trying to talk to them?
Stop. Just stop. They’re gone.
Focus on getting out the vote. Because we’re not going to beat Fox News, they’ve got a lock on the right wing dementia. Stop being surprised that they’re so fucking stupid. That’s on us. Let’s move on.
The funny thing about this is that the voting block that the facists are running aren't "conservatives" or "right wing" they're the huge group of people who prefer to not think and can be easily manipulated through propaganda.
If there was no trillion dollar think tank network blasting their constant hate and bad faith divisive crap these people would stretch all the way across the spectrum according to whichever local person has the most charisma in their circle, like a pastor or local teacher.
Democrats can't martial a counter force for the cult because there aren't enough weak minded lazybrains laying around anymore. They're all in the cult bucket already.
Gaza was given to Arabs for self rule and determination in 2005, all Jews left Gaza, even Jewish graveyards were dug up and moved, it was theirs to do with as they liked.
They've spent the last 18 years making into a terrorist Disneyland with a dozen Islamofascist terrorist organizations with the stated goal of killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel, they've fired hundreds of thousands of missiles into Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians, and launched countless cross borders attacks against Jewish civilians, including one that caused the largest loss of Jewish life in any single day, anywhere, since the Holocaust on October 7th.
They were given Gaza to live in freedom and self determination, they used it to kill Jews. They were warned. They chose to ignore the warnings.
These acts of terrorism were perpetrated by the entire Gazan community, they voted for Hamas, and allowed Hamas to rule their government for the last 17 years, there has been no uprising in Gaza, there have only been attacks on Israel. This is what Gazans have supported and sacrificed for in every way they possibly could.
And now it's here. I do hope they enjoy what they've worked generationaly to achieve.
how does it feel to not have anything to say in response to a well-thought-out point, but be incapable of leaving it alone, so you just have to say "boo, you're on the other side as me!" and leave a downvote.
Holy shit Dan. Yeah, downpunxx, the account that copies and pastes genocidal screeds all over the fediverse has a well thought out point not worth refuting. Dude. WTF.
It’s irrelevant whether this screed is disingenuous or ignorant. It serves to prop up the apartheid state of Israel. And you should be ashamed for perpetuating it.
"THeY wEre GiVEn GAZa" how are you going to give someone their own land? You lunatics screeching like literal wife beaters that these people had it coming have made the entirety of all of this look so much worse than just the inexcusable genocide that it already is.
Imagine going into someone’s houses, beating the shut out of them daily, and giving them the garage to live in and complaining that they’re not greatlful and haven’t turned the garage into an amazing new place to live.
Wild that someone downvotes you for saying this. It is literally the analogy of what has happened to the Palestinians but all the pro-israel crowd has their heads so far up their collective asses they can’t admit basic facts.
One part of your analogy that needs to be added is that they keep moving the walls of the garage in more and more to make more room for them and less for you. But hey why are you mad bro?
I'm not any more pro-Hamas than anyone else, but cmon man. Do you really feel as if your individual actions have been able to substantively alter the direction of your own country, in your lifetime?
Palestinians are living in an authoritarian regime. Most are probably brainwashed from near birth. Those that aren't, or that resist it, aren't given many avenues for change. In our delightful western democracies we may be given the right to peaceful protest - what do you think happens to people who protest Hamas, in Gaza? because I'm betting it's not a winning strategy for a long, rewarding existence.
the lucky Palestinians get out, but from what I understand, there are basically no avenues by which they can do so. Does that justify murdering them en masse?
I'm with you on this, I feel bad for what I suspect is a majority of Gazans who fear Hamas too much to speak up against them. That's the biggest issue with OP's argument.
But Israel isn't targeting them. Israel is doing everything it can to warn them of the exact buildings it's targeting, and Hamas is doing everything it can to keep them in the warzones and in the buildings, because it wants them to die, it wants them to be "martyrs" Its leaders have made this clear in many interviews. They talk about how they have six kids in the hopes that three of them die.
War is hell. Nobody is taking this lightly. There will be civilian casualties. That's a terrible thing. Allowing Hamas to continue its control and its rampage is worse.
Allowing them to continue to oppress Palestinians, target Israeli civilians, fire rockets (more rockets have landed in Gaza than in Israel!)... They dig up water pipes to turn into rockets. They steal fuel from power plants that could be used to power hospitals and desalination plants. They set up their bases and fire rockets from schools, hospitals, mosques, and residences. They are demanding war. Their founding charter entirely rejects any kind of peace at all. It's not an accident.
Maybe if they didn’t bomb the designated ‘safe’ areas, people would believe them. Like that one man said: why go to the South and die there when I can die in my own house? Action/ reaction.
Sure, the very Israeli military who targetted and killed journalists in Lebanon and bombed and killed the wife and children of an Al Jazeera journalist whilst he was live on air from Gaza (and who even before this used a sniper to execute a journalist) are trying to avoid civilian casualties, something which we know because they tell us that, and we all know how murderers of journalists and their families are the most honest people around…
Jordan is a traitor that asked for a pardon for his part in fomenting the Jan 6th insurrection. He is a traitor that denies the results of a free and fair election. He is an enabler of sexual abuse. He illegally defied a Congressional subpoena.
Jordan is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and should be treated as such.
nytimes.com
Hot