Because right-wingers are EXTREMELY, overwhelmingly, almost unanimously corrupt. They would never punish one of their own, no matter heinous, unethical, or repugnant the crime. They know that if they do not all stick together lock-step no matter what, their illegitimately stolen power will fall apart like used wet toiletpaper.
left wingers are any better? I got one for you, the state is neither, it has both parties in it and only two parties. it is corrupt, rub two brain cells to together to arrive at a conclusion outside of the left/right framework. I know it is hard but work on it.
like why are you even make this left right when most of us are the bottom?
Fascist gonna fascism. In the face of a right wing court overturning people's human rights. Talking about a culture war while the world burns due to something they refuse to even believe, and suddenly best of friends with Putin, while trump talks about getting a dictatorship in place, while CPAC runs a statement "we are all domestic terrorists".
You guys have to be the most ignorant, and least empathetic humans ever born.
You don’t at all question how unlikely it is that a community named ‘politics’ can have such a homogenous point of view as this one without some kind of bullshit being involved?
Every post is from a liberal-positive perspective, every comment even slightly right is downvoted to oblivion and shouted down immediately. This isn’t natural.
By the amount of downvotes my posts here receive, it would basically need to be that every single person online decided to downvote my comment.
You think that’s just natural? You think it’s because you’re sooooooooo right and I’m sooooooo wrong?
You think it’s odd that the overwhelming majority of folks support things that help others? Doesn’t say much about the community but definitely says a lot about you.
A little presumptive there, when you realize that everyone pretty much wants to helps others and the disagreements come in about what the right way to do that is.
Do you think conservatives are hatful little Devil’s just trying to hurt people? That’s what too much Twitter will do to you
the disagreements come in about what the right way to do that is.
I mean, when one side says "these things that help people are failures because they don't help enough people" and the other side says "but they're helping people", that's not about the right way.
At no point have you offered an alternative, you're simply saying "the other side is wrong" while using specious arguments to back it up.
Do you think conservatives are hatful little Devil’s just trying to hurt people?
Calling objectively successful policies failures is either extremely ignorant or actively trying to hurt people.
The implication is that these things are actively hurting people by keeping them in poverty and creating new poverty situations.
I guess it also really depends on what you define ‘helping’ as. If all you’re looking for is to collect a small cheque and that’s ‘helping’, I guess these programs look great to you.
But for someone like me, who thinks helping people become self sufficient and get off of programs like welfare, the numbers don’t look like that’s what’s happening at all.
Someone collecting welfare is in a poverty state already, and most people who collect welfare do not actually have a great chance to ever get off of welfare.
So instead of helping people, it ends up doing the ex’s T opposite. Keeping people perpetually dependent on social welfare programs.
But for someone like me, who thinks helping people become self sufficient and get off of programs like welfare, the numbers don’t look like that’s what’s happening at all.
This has been proven not to actually help. You know what has? Giving cash to people. Just straight up giving them money. It's too bad conservatives refuse to believe that and insist on means testing everything and reducing benefits wherever possible.
There's another fun thing. One half of the people in this conversation actually listen to experts. The other half considers all experts suspect and presumes they're all politically motivated (to make them look bad, no doubt.)
And I like how you shared an article talking about how people in poverty have the highest marginal tax rate. Considering conservatives are constantly cutting tax rates, that's a delightful irony in your argument. Maybe if we quit giving ten times as much money to rich people and started using that money to support poor people, we could help them better.
Taxes are certainly an issue, but just giving people money is not the answer to poverty.
There's a lot of evidence that the solution to "people not having enough money to live" is, in fact, "giving people enough money to live".
It is the perpetual poverty machine keeping people impoverished
AKA Capitalism, sure. With how much you whine about leftists, I'd assume you were all for that. A pretty major plank of conservative platforms is "hurt people more efficiently".
It’s like I said, we both want to help people, we just disagree about what’s actually helpful.
You know that lottery winners are more likely to go broke too, right? Did you ever wonder why that might be?
I’ll give you a hint, giving people money doesn’t solve anyone’s inability to manage money. You can throw hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands at people and if they don’t know how to manage their wealth, they’ll just be back asking for more money.
That’s the perpetuality of it, it’s documented and really unarguable.
People on welfare get trapped by welfare. It’s just the reality of the programs. They aren’t effective at doing what you want them to do.
You’re actually hurting more people but thinking that you’re helping. It doesn’t make you a bad person, you’re just misguided and lied to
Yep. By the experts. That do things like "research". Much better to listen to these other lies, that people that have a vested interest in the outcome want to tell me.
You know that lottery winners are more likely to go broke too, right? Did you ever wonder why that might be?
You are truly masterful at specious arguments. I wish some day I could attain your level of expertise at that. (And, for the record, that's specious with an e. Last time you tried to use it you said spacious, which doesn't make a lick of sense.)
I don't know how else to make you understand this. If you give enough money to survive to people in poverty, they stop being people in poverty. There's evidence of this all over the world, not just in the US. If people on welfare get "trapped by welfare", why does the poverty rate decline in every country that has welfare? Wouldn't it increase? How do you explain all the research that show things like UBI causes dramatic improvements in quality of life in many places?
Yes, giving a lifetime's worth of cash to someone that's been in poverty their whole life is a great way of completely destroying their life. I completely agree. It doesn't make sense to try and apply that to giving those same people a reasonable amount to survive on, though.
You’re actually hurting more people but thinking that you’re helping.
Again. Experts, research and reality all agree with me.
The fact that you believe lottery winners are more likely to go broke makes me think you don’t care much for reality at all, and put a lot more trust and energy into what makes you feel good and correct.
I think you’re projecting a bit here, I don’t use Twitter. I live in a place where republicans are actively stripping social safety nets and rights. I get to see it first hand while reading comments about how it’s not happening and that it’s just Twitter drama 🤔
Just look at the amount of people living in poverty in the 40’s and early 50’s, then the democrats started the “war on poverty” and started these programs and 70 years later, the number of people living in poverty has continued to rise
Just look at the number of people living in poverty those stats aren’t hard to find.
More people are living in poverty in the US today than they were 70 years ago
You’d think after 20+ trillion dollars spent, the record on poverty would be much much better
You are just wrong. Absolute numbers are not relevant when discussing trends because, guess what, the population of the whole world has increased in the last 70 years. Shocking news!
Povery rates are approximately half of what it was in 1958, when the Census bureau began tracking data. The rate bottomed out in 2019 but then went back up in 2020 (bet you can guess why), and is now trending down again.
Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.
Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.
Specious: "misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive."
It's absolutely specious, because you're somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would've been double what it is.
And I said at best, because it's far more likely you're just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's work through this.
If a family in poverty that's 2 people, has 3 children, that's now 5 people.
If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you've gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you've gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.
You’re being spacious right now, trying to cover up the fact that there are demonstrably MORE suffering people than there has ever been.
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
The reason these programs were introduced was supposed to lead to less suffering. That’s been a lie
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
Again: because there's more PEOPLE than there has ever been. Yes, there is more suffering. I have no idea what you expect, the political climate is such that we can't just eradicate their suffering. But to pretend like these policies are a failure is going to cause more suffering. How do you not see that?
That 20% is the number that aren't suffering because of these policies. If you were to remove them, that 20% is the added suffering you are causing.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
Have they accomplished everything they set out to? Absolutely not.
Are they failing? Absolutely not.
I mean, what is an acceptable number of people living in poverty to you and when are there too many? Is it a percentage? Or is it a real number of real people?
See, in my world, percentages are real numbers of real people. I know, that's crazy. And I'm not going to pretend like there's some number that's acceptable, or enough, because that's not the point. The point is that the policies we're discussing have reduced the suffering.
You calling them a lie can only lead to more suffering. Hopefully you realize that some day.
So then suggest a better plan? Your point is the total number of people living in poverty has increased and that the money we’re spending is ineffective. If we do nothing poverty at best stays the same or at worst increases. So, for your argument to make sense, just cutting programs meant to reduce poverty doesn’t make sense. Unless you have your eyes on a better plan, your whole position and point here is to whine and cry about government spending without any care for solving the actual problem.
It’s complex for sure, and I’m sure if I had all the answers I’d be in a position to actually propose them.
The idea that handing out money is working is wrong though, I think it should be pretty clear to anyone paying attention that’s the case.
We need to continue creating jobs, in order to do that we need to make it as easy and painless (and affordable) for small businesses to exist and succeed.
We should probably lean heavier into the market in that way, pull regulations back, pull government further out of the markets further out of our everyday lives in general (government isn’t good at …. Anything, really. The less they are involved in my life and you’re the better imo).
There should certainly be some kind of social safety nets, but nothing to the extent as what we have now. You’ll always have people who legitimately cannot work, who do not have family or community to help support them (think children caring for their parents in old age).
Charity would be easier for people to voluntarily give to if their taxes were less. As it stands now, a lot of people feel like if they are already paying 30% of their income to the government to take care of people who need help, then that’s all of a sudden the governments job and not the communities, or the individuals.
People would have a hard time making less working everyday than they might make from the government, but even having a low paying job is growing. You learn how to even have a job, how to show up on time, how to work with others, you learn some sort of skills just being at work and trying everyday.
Many would think relying on family and community and individuals to take care of each other and themselves instead of the government is somehow insensitive, but that’s always been how humans have done it.
There will always be a certain amount of the population who refuse to participate in the system, there isn’t much you can really do about those people. You can’t force someone to live a way they don’t want to live, but for those who want to improve their station in life, you can give them the opportunities to do that by making competition and small businesses more appealing.
Right now, a lot of the issue is that people often don’t feel like it’s ‘worth it’ to get off the governments teat. They lose benefits and have to …. Work. And that’s okay.
It’s complex for sure, and I’m sure if I had all the answers I’d be in a position to actually propose them.
The idea that handing out money is working is wrong though, I think it should be pretty clear to anyone paying attention that’s the case.
But if you look up welfare’s effect on poverty you will see in many cases increased spending on welfare leads to decreased levels of poverty. Why get rid of programs that are consistently proven to reduce poverty across many countries?
We should probably lean heavier into the market in that way, pull regulations back, pull government further out of the markets further out of our everyday lives in general (government isn’t good at …. Anything, really. The less they are involved in my life and you’re the better imo).
But the market doesn’t fix everything. When a companies interests oppose those of the public we’ve seen time and time again that a company will opt for the choice that leads to the greatest profits over the interests of the public. Arbitrarily cutting back regulations and letting the market figure things out is a poor strategy. The market hasn’t solved this issue already. So, what would incentivize the market to actually help those living in poverty? Keep in mind that businesses already commit more welfare fraud than individuals.
People would have a hard time making less working everyday than they might make from the government, but even having a low paying job is growing. You learn how to even have a job, how to show up on time, how to work with others, you learn some sort of skills just being at work and trying everyday.
It’s not really an either/or situation where you either are poor, unemployed and doing nothing on government benefits, or you have a job and are a productive member of society. There are people relying on benefits who are also working, who know how to show up on time, who know how to work with others, who are working on developing employable skills and so on. There are people who are employed who suck at showing up on time, work poorly with others and are general drains on society.
There will always be a certain amount of the population who refuse to participate in the system, there isn’t much you can really do about those people. You can’t force someone to live a way they don’t want to live, but for those who want to improve their station in life, you can give them the opportunities to do that by making competition and small businesses more appealing.
Yeah, I don’t think people are arguing against enabling others to improve their station in life when they argue in favor of things like welfare. The notion that being on welfare implies people aren’t trying to improve their station or that they just don’t want to work and so on is a big claim that needs real evidence beyond just being asserted to be taken seriously. Even if that is the case, it doesn’t successfully argue that we ought to totally dismantle or even reduce welfare systems to begin with, just that we need to better tool welfare systems to incentivize different sets of behavior.
You need to talk about real people, not statistics. What’s 20%? Who gives a shit. More suffering is more suffering, no matter what the percentage is.
We track the change in the number of people living in poverty to the total pop via these statistics. For example if last decade we had 20% of people living in poverty and this decade we have 10% of people living in poverty, that tells us relative to the total population there are less people living in poverty. In other words previously if we had randomly sampled 100 people we would have expected to find approx 20 living in poverty vs now we would expect to only find approx 10 if we randomly sample 100 people.
Bringing poverty down from one percentage to a smaller one as described above describes a success in the sense that poverty is more uncommon compared to the total population.
If P is the total number of people living in poverty, T is the total population and R is the ratio of people living in poverty to the total population then we have R=P/T, in other words P=TR.
Your issue is just that the number of people living in poverty P is too large. But if that’s your concern then we either need to decrease T (the total population) or decrease R (the ratio of people living in poverty to total population) or decrease both T and R.
You’re arguing that our efforts to decrease R aren’t working (or aren’t working well enough). So, then what should we do? If we do nothing, R remains fixed (or even increases) and P increases due to the increasing population T, which makes your issue worse. Decreasing the total population T seems tricky too, if that’s a viable solution to you, them how do you suppose we should accomplish it? As far as I can tell the only plausible solution is decreasing R, which is exactly what the person you were replying to was talking about?
Note: I’m also ignoring that the rates of change in T and R matter a lot. If you care to argue that we’re not decreasing R fast enough, then what would you suggest in order for us to decrease R faster?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
In all honesty, with the amount of dollars spent over the last 70 years (an entire generation of US citizenry), poverty should be absolutely eradicated.
The interesting question to get to here, is why hasn’t poverty been eradicated? $20 some odd trillion dollars have been spent.
If you spent $20 trillion on 11% of the population, or 40m people …. That’s what? $500,000 spent per person living in poverty?
How do these numbers work out? How do you spend $500k for every person living in poverty right now, spread over a generation? And how is poverty still a thing?
Have you ever heard the term “lies, damned lies and statistics”?
When I say that 40 million people in the USA live in poverty, is your response going to be “well, that’s only 11%!” And feel good about yourself?
Did you read my actual post? My point is about how actual accurate statistics work and the logical conclusions that must follow from them. Not about whatever particular statistics you’ve read and chosen to disagree with today. My points still hold regardless of whether we’re talking about statistics you agree with or not.
Or are you going to think “shit. That’s more than the entire population of Canada.” And then rethink on these social programs, their cost and their effectiveness?
If you read what I actually said you’ll notice part of what I was asking you was what is your suggestion for what to do in place of these programs you’re claiming are failures? You disliking a particular statistic doesn’t address that question.
It’s fairly clear, when you start digging into these numbers that the more money spent to fight poverty doesn’t correspond to less people living in poverty. And if throwing money at the problem doesn’t help, it’s probably pretty scary for you to try to sus out what the alternatives might be.
Yes, basic familiarity with ratios and the fact that the population is increasing also leads us to this conclusion i.e. basic elementary school math also tells us this. I addressed this in my previous post to you actually.
Why even bother to respond if you’re going to address none of my points, answer none of the questions I’ve asked you and instead whine and moan about statistics that are entirely irrelevant to my point? If you would read what I said you’ll notice that my points and questions don’t change whether the population is 10 people or 10 million people, or whether the ratio of people living in poverty to the total pop is 100% or 1%.
You’ve never heard of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing opportunities, mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc etc etc
Like Jesus Christ with that comment. How fucking stupid are conservatives? Go hit your head with a hammer and see if it helps. Seemingly it couldn’t hurt.
so practically speaking not much of safety net unless you are old, or single poor mother, which i support no doubt but that is [not] a safety net a vast majority of the population.
also, note mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens >>> federal government and states hardly provide these, they are provided by private sector...
even those have been steadily eroded under successive administration since 1980s, which share of taxes paid by working people have been increasing. so working person pays more taxes and gets no safety net for the most part.
You need to get educated instead of vomiting generic talking points, it would help this country if everyone did the same.
Voting for either party is providing legitimacy to the regime. you are better off voting with your feet and money since that's the last place you still have some agency. political process is captured, voting third party is the only logical decision but none of them are really inspiring any confidence since they shill degeneracy.
If you only care about ideology and not actual people that are suffering every day, then yeah, giving up and letting other people solve the problem is the best thing you can do.
You know one of the parties keeps voting to take away the safety nets/keep us from getting them right? I’m all up for getting a third forth and even fifth party but its just not going to happen unless we can fix the current system and the gop is never going to let that happen.
it is corrupt, rub two brain cells to together to arrive at a conclusion outside of the left/right framework.
Weird that 1/2 of this framework, the D group, always votes against gigantic tax cuts for the rich, and the R group always votes for the exact opposite. Both sides are the same opposite of each other.
like why are you even make this left right when most of us are the bottom?
Because if you are at the bottom, you would be an extreme fool to vote for the party that consistently gives gigantic tax cuts to billionaires.
Exactly! That alone is why it's very important to vote against the GOP and their gigantic tax cuts for billionaire elites.
What did you get from Democrats having both house and presidency,
Increased minimum corporate tax rate from 0% to 20%.
Increased subsidies for ACA
Tax Cuts for middle class. $2000 per person. Plus $200 per dependent per month.
Reduction in medicare drug costs
Reduction in student loans. Sabotaged by GOP Supreme Court.
Action on climate change.
...And Biden got all that stuff done with just one vote Dem majority in the senate, which included Manshin and Arizona lady who isn't even Dem anymore. If Dems had huge majorities, they could enable a flood of progress just like they did in the 1930's and 1960's.
The cope here is too strong today lol
The "both sides" nonsense is strong today lol. But still easily refuted by reality.
2020: Elected President, defeating Donald Trump in the Electoral College 306 to 232, with a popular vote margin of more than 7 million votes.
2021: Directed USA to rejoin Paris Climate Agreement.
2021: Halted the Keystone XL pipeline.
2021: Repealed Trump’s travel bans.
2021: Repealed Trump’s transgender military ban.
2021: Ordered an additional 200 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine.
2021: Pledged $4 billion to COVAX global vaccine alliance.
2021: Signed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law. It includes:
Small business support. $1,400 per person checks. Increases to the Child Tax Credit, Earned-Income Tax Credit, and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credits. $300 extended unemployment insurance. Lower health insurance premiums for lower- and middle-income families enrolled in health insurance marketplaces.
2021: Canceled $1.5 billion in student debt for victims of for-profit school fraud.
2021: Ended the War in Afghanistan after 20 years.
2021: Negotiated and signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. It includes:
$110 billion for roads, bridges, and major projects
$73 billion for power infrastructure
$66 billion for passenger and freight rail
$65 billion for broadband
$55 billion for clean drinking water
$50 billion for water resilience and Western water storage
$39 billion for public transit
$25 billion for airports
$21 billion for removal of pollution from water and soil
$17 billion for port infrastructure
$7.5 billion for electric vehicles
$7.5 billion for zero/low emission busses and ferries
$1 billion for the revitalization of communities
2021: U.S. gross domestic product grew at 5.7 percent for the year, the strongest economic growth in 37 years.
2021: Favorability of the United States improved sharply around the world.
2022: Approved a U.S. special forces mission that killed ISIS leader Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi.
2022: Nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to become the first Black woman in history to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
2022: Signed the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
2022: Led a massive international response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
2022: Signed the first major gun safety legislation passed by Congress in nearly 30 years.
2022: Ordered the drone strike that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and the world’s most wanted terrorist.
2022: Unemployment falls to 3.5 percent, matching the lowest rate in 50 years.
2022: Signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law, providing $52.7 billion for chip manufacturing and research and $170 billion for scientific research, innovation, and space exploration.
2022: Signed ratification documents approving NATO membership for Finland and Sweden, strengthening the NATO alliance and reinforcing democracy in the face of Russian brutality against Ukraine.
2022: Signed PACT Act strengthening health care and benefits for America’s veterans and their survivors.
2022: Signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. It includes $369 billion to provide energy security, fight climate change, and create clean domestic manufacturing jobs. It also lowers healthcare costs by extending Affordable Care Act subsidies for 3 years, expanding vaccine coverage, and reforming prescription drug pricing. The act also raises revenue by establishing a 15% corporate minimum tax on companies with at least $1 billion in profits. Through revenue and savings, the Inflation Reduction Act reduces the deficit by a net $305 billion dollars.
2022: Less than 2 years into his presidency, Biden is already one of the most legislatively successful presidents of the modern era.
2022: Thanks to a Biden executive order, hearing aids become available over the counter without a prescription, lowering costs by up to $3,000 per pair for 30 million Americans.
2022: Led the Democratic Party to the best midterm election performance of either party since 1934.
2022: Signed legislation to avoid a potentially catastrophic rail strike after brokering a deal approved by 8 of 12 railway unions, raising workers’ wages by 24%, increasing health care benefits, and preserving two-person crews.
2022: Approved a deal to bring WNBA star Brittney Griner home after 10 months of wrongful detention in Russia.
2022: Signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring federal recognition of marriage regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin, ten years after publicly declaring his support of same-sex marriage on Meet the Press.
2023: Forced congressional Republicans to swear off Medicare and Social Security cuts on live television while delivering his State of the Union Address.
2023: Took a 10-hour train trip, each way, through war-torn Ukraine to meet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv and reconfirm U.S. support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s criminal aggression.
2023: Signed an executive order greatly expanding access to long-term care and child care.
2023: Mounted a major diplomatic effort that got Turkey to agree to admit Sweden into NATO, making that alliance stronger than it has ever been.
2023: Announced $39 billion in student debt relief for 804,000 borrowers.
Remember when Al Franken resigned because someone said they were bother by his actions decades ago? Remember how there were bipartisan investigations into Benghazi and Hillary emails? Or when Bill Clinton let an independent special prosecutor attempt to find evidence of corruption?
How about how Lindsey Graham said that he would never support confirming a supreme court justice before a presidential election and then did that? Or how many of Trump’s administration have went to jail?
This “both sides are just as bad” number doesn’t work when one side is activity lieing, curtailing freedoms and attempting literal coups, while the other side has obeyed due process and law the overwhelming majority of the time.
Centrist Democratic Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power, but we want people to like us so we’ll do some incrementally good things things to keep folks satisfied
Centrist Republican Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power, and fuck you. If you don’t support us rapist minorities are going to rape you to death, or you might have to see people who aren’t like you in public.
Centrist Democratic Politician: we want to exploit labor and centralize weath and power,
Then how come 100% of them voted against Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump and the GOP's gigantic tax cuts for billionaires in 2017? Vague claims mean nothing. Only real things matter.
So first let’s be clear. I’m not "both sides"ing. My point is clearly that the overton window for centrists is so far right, that the parties would essentially meet in the center if the republican party hadn’t fully embraced the culture war insanity.
Voting against Trump (a member of the opposing party) is like, the least they could do. They should hardly get back pats for that.
We are no better than them if we keep eating meat and using products which origin is power abuse over less powerful animals. Rich conservatives may argue they are doing with us just what we make with others
Hypocrisy in this country is hilarious. If any other country were to do things like this guy has done with “lobbyist” they would be called corrupt, but not here, we call it lobbying for a cause.
He may claim he is an angel. Since others live with power abuse over less capable animals (eating meat and others products which origin are animals forced work or murder), he may say he is just an avenger reflecting his enemies mistakes.
Because we as American citizens don’t demand it. Im not a huge fan of the French but they deserve credit for not putting up with political bullshit. These people need to be held accountable & we’re the only ones that can do that but we lack the will. And that’s sad AF.
Because in reality its not Republicans vs Democrats. It’s Us against Them. They will never side with Us against one of their own. We exist to fill their coffers, we are necessary bugs in the system.
You mean he’s the one in charge of determining exactly what the document says and how it applies to law so it doesn’t apply any way he doesn’t want it to? Also, they assumed people wouldn’t be horrible corrupt pieces of shit on this level when they wrote the constitution. So there aren’t any rules that say “supreme court members shouldn’t take bribes from people with business before the court”, because it’s so unbelievably common sense not to.
Could you explain to me how taking bribes from people he is presiding over is doing his job “well and accurately”? Founding fathers would have kicked him out a long time ago
He just interprets it in a way that happens to align with his donors and with his extremely conservative views. The constitution itself is an evil document no society should be based on.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That seems like a part of the constitution he isn’t upholding
Maybe if you read the constitution you’d understand what’s going on.
Trump should not be able to run for president based on the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment because of the insurrection.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Other things of note: 'In early 2016, Trump again had gutting the First Amendment in view, this time wanting to “open up the libel laws” to infringe on the freedom of the press. That summer, he vowed to protect articles of the Constitution that do not exist. In 2017, he said constitutional checks and balances that required him to share power with Congress are a “very rough” and “archaic” system, which is “a really bad thing for the country.” That fall, he said asserting Fifth Amendment rights is proof of guilt. In 2018, he floated unilaterally ending birthright citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment.
In 2019, Trump repeatedly claimed Article II of the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want.” The same year, he argued he should be able to abuse national emergency declarations to expand his own power beyond constitutional boundaries because Democrats would do the same thing if given the chance. In 2020, he reportedly expressed interest in declaring martial law though the constitutional preconditions for it, per Ex parte Milligan (1866), had not been met. And just last month, he called for executing drug dealers after a two-hour trial modeled on communist China’s justice system, a blatant rejection of constitutional due process. By the standard of many of his Republican supporters, even Trump’s record on the Second Amendment falls short."
I'm removing this comment because you've been reported for trolling.
Be aware that every member of the mod team has brought up your name and the word "ban" in the same sentence, especially for your behavior in other magazines.
I defended you and said no - let's not judge their actions for other parts of the Fediverse. That's how you become r/pyongyang. But when your behavior in this magazine earns reports from other members of the community, we will act on them.
You have a choice right now: you are in full control of your actions to participate in this community by not antagonizing or trolling. Nobody is asking you for ideological agreement, just that you don't spend all your free energy here trying to get a reaction out of others.
It takes a real special kind of someone to hear "I defended you against being banned" as "we only permit one type of opinion in this magazine."
We welcome a diversity of perspectives for civil discussion. You are aware that you are skirting civility with your words. Especially your penultimate sentence which is easy to interpret as transphobic. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry, so you've made your choice to no longer participate here. Congrats.
"The left" aka the rest of the developed world, but OK boss. Ignore the cartoonishly obvious corruption. I guess justices can just accept huge gifts from whoever, business before the court or not. Because it's not specifically called out in the constitution it's all good! Ethics is canceled, we can all go home. Cool, cool.
@ProfThadBach In all honesty though, why would we expect any better when our only major parties are far-right fascists and right-of-center liberals? That's two right-wing parties controlling everything.
Okay but you know expanding the court is a nuclear option. Like the current place we are in is there are 6 "conservative" judges and 3 "liberal" ones. So you would need to introduce 4 new supreme court justices at minimum to upset the current balance. While you are sort of ignoring the Senate has 49 republicans, 48 dems, and 3 "independents". So who again confirms supreme court justices? Oh yeah senate.... This is also ignoring you would have to make a new act to set the number of supreme court justices to 13 and who has majority control over house again? So lets fast forward to some future where dems have unquestionable control over the legislative branch of government where they can't be filibustered down. What exactly stops conservatives from just increasing that number once again to 18 or so when they have control?
Like I'm not happy with the current circumstances but we have to remember there are many systems in this and if we ever get around to do said changes they have to be done in a careful way since they can absolutely backfire on us. Like I'm quite aware many conservatives play dirty ie "you can't appoint a supreme court justice on an election year, it should be based on the voice of the people" that was quickly ignored once it was advantageous to do.
Add comment