“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It’s definitely not as clear as one might expect out of a modern legal document. That being said, the precedent here is very straightforward, and any ruling in favor of the law would be a huge shift in how the separation of church and state is applied.
That being said, the precedent here is very straightforward, and any ruling in favor of the law would be a huge shift in how the separation of church and state is applied.
Good thing the Supreme Court respects precedent. Otherwise they could decide to just change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow states to establish their own state religion, since the Constitution specified “Congress”.
It’s amazing to me how many people don’t realize that’s EXACTLY how it was originally meant. The first 10 Amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, didn’t originally apply to the States and that most definitely included the 1st (and the 2nd for those of you keeping track at home.)
That didn’t happen until SCOTUS created the “Incorporation Doctrine” some years after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, over 100 years after the founding of the United States.
The United States was built from the ground up to function as a collection of sovereign States moderated by a relatively weak Federal Government, nearly the opposite of how things work today. Its a good chunk of the reason why our Government and Judiciary are such a mess, they weren’t designed for what they’ve become.
Oh I’m not saying we should go back to the 1800s or that the States shouldn’t be held to the 1A. My comment is bemused / sad because you were attempting to make a dramatic argument without releasing that it was unironically correct. People need to be taught a LOT more details about how our Government works and how it came to be what it is today.
…and how can any government be of the people if it disregards what the people want
Overall I don’t think it can, at least not for too long. At some point a Government must either adapt to its Citizens wishes or it becomes illegitimate. There are a couple of “gotchas” though, the first being who is a citizen and the other is which or how many of them the Government should listen too.
The original setup of the United States with it’s Federalist structure was actually quite good, if somewhat inhumane, at answering those two questions. It’s a shame we busted the fuck out of it.
Youre missing the point. Whether or not that was actually the intention is completely irrelevant in the modern day, because only fascist assholes actually want to go back
But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don’t like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800’s, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.
You understand these people arent going to stop at federalism, yes? Please take a look at Project 2025. They want to force their own values onto the majority at the federal level, and our ancient electoral system will enable them to do so. And even if they did, that would still be condemning the populations of their own states to repression
That is true, I hadn’t considered that. Project 2025 does indeed call for curtailing the sovereignty of the individual States. Perhaps not explicitly, but they will leverage the Supremacy Clause as well as the Commerce Clause to usurp the powers of States they don’t like.
Which wouldn’t be very “muh states rights” of them, but they don’t care.
Precisely. The “Originalism” of the court- backward as it would be- isnt even that. Its a front to sell out federal policy to the highest bidder. Because its not enough to live in Gilead, they have to fuse it with Night City too.
Probably a healthy think to try like cutting back on drinking or sweets.
Probably won’t make much of a difference environmentally though, and I hope this being a “challenge” doesn’t sprout an industry of pinning issues on people who consider new clothing a luxury.
If he broke the law for $800, I’m guessing $3,500 is probably more than 5% of his income. He’s the pastor of a West Texas church with less than 100 congregants. It took his church plus three others to shore up less than a grand. He probably makes less than $70,000 gross, so you’re likely actually suggesting that he be fined less than the $3,500 he was fined.
What I’d really like to see is his church and any other church that conspired to break the law for political ends be stripped of their tax exempt status.
That’s why you can’t do a flat fee; a minimum with exponential scaling. By the time you get to anyone in the top, say, 10% of income it should to become life crippling. For the top 1% it should be life destroying. For the top 1% of 1%, they should be fined so hard they can’t even afford a box to shelter in.
If we didn’t make them suffer in the only way they seem to understand - the wallet - then they’ll never, ever stop.
The ultra rich will show up with close to zero income, because they don’t actually deal in cash. This isn’t the master plan you think it is.
Issuing a fine that is some multiple of the damages ensures that it doesn’t become a “cost of doing business”.
Issuing a fine based on the income of the person receiving it makes sense for a handful of civil violations, if you can keep it from being exploited, but it is very exploitable especially if you have a lot of non-cash capital that you can leverage without ever generating any legally recognized income.
Even if it was, Biden won by unprecedentedly narrow margins in key states.
In the intervening 3.5 years, Trump has shorn up gaps in his base, motivating them to turn up to vote; his scotus nominations have ran roughshod over democracy.
Meanwhile it took Biden’s administration 2.5 years to get nuclear secrets or whatever back from the insurrectionist traitor who still walks free, and for some inconceivable notion, is running against him for president; has pissed away votes trying to chase centrists, pissed away vote supporting genocide, and pissed away votes by being entirely out of touch on “the economy”- which we all know really means “rich people’s yacht money.”
I don’t care about him being old- I care about him being competent.
Is he a fuckton more competent than Trump? Absolutely. It’s the difference between a hammer and a rock, but we’re trying to rebuild and should probably get an air nailer. even so, it’s asininely stupid to force Biden out if he doesn’t want to go.
If his ego won’t let him bow out for the sake of Americans, he’s absolutely going to ruin any chance anyone else has, too.
In the intervening 3.5 years, Trump has shorn up gaps in his base, motivating them to turn up to vote; his scotus nominations have ran roughshod over democracy.
And massively lost. Let’s not forget that 2022 was an absolute route for the Republican Party, as has been nearly every special election. Their antics are a complete self-own. Trump’s dominance is anything but assured.
The public may have a short memory, but RvW is a dominant concern that the right will just not stop punching themselves in the balls with.
I just refuse to accept this gloom about Biden. Replace him and you lose the incumbent advantage and everyone is thrown into chaos and confusion and we go back to arguing about who the nominee should be like before the primaries instead of consolidating behind a single person. Harris is the only real logical replacement at this point and no one actually wants her. The only other names I’ve even heard are Newsome and Whitmer, who both lack national exposure because they haven’t been campaigning.
Maybe Biden will pull off a loss here, but I think it’s too late to unite behind anyone else.
And massively lost. Let’s not forget that 2022 was an absolute route for the Republican Party, as has been nearly every special election. Their antics are a complete self-own. Trump’s dominance is anything but assured.
Uhm. I wouldn’t call gaining control of the house a “rout”… Just saying.
I just refuse to accept this gloom about Biden.
In 2020, Georgia was one by less than 12k votes. Arizona was won by 10.4k votes. Pennsylvania 80k votes. Wisconsin 20k votes. These are infinitesimally small leads. Trump only needed three of the four to get the requisite EC votes to win.
By the way, by “shoring up” his base… that includes fucked up shit like getting laws passed to make it easier for republican assholes to overturn the will of their citizens, and continued gerrymandering bullshit.
Do not turn a blind eye to just how unpopular biden really is, and it’s not too late. The convention hasn’t even happened yet. If Biden did the right thing and bowed out and supported whoever replaced him as the candidate, it would work. Remember- all the idiots screaming “Vote Blue No Matter Who”? yeah… it goes both ways.
That said… he should not be forced out. Forcing him out is how you split the vote and hand Trump the win without even trying. Personally, I feel like Biden is holding the country hostage, but we won’t get into that.
In off election years (where there isn’t a presidential ticket), the party in power (this time it was the democrats) on average loses 30-40 seats. It’s a massive flip. The democrats actually won seats and if it wasn’t for the fuck face dem leader in New York fucking with the maps you would have seen dems in control of the house.
I’m going to argue some points here, but I appreciate your perspective. This is more conversational than argumentative.
Uhm. I wouldn’t call gaining control of the house a “rout”… Just saying.
Compared to what they were expected to gain, yes, they were completely dominated. They had all their “red wave” speeches prepared and it all melted away in a historically bad performance. They expected to control both chambers and have a significant margin in the House and we see how that turned out.
and continued gerrymandering bullshit.
Man, gerrymandering pisses me off so much and I think it’s at the core of how partisan and fucked up things are right now. But I think there were a couple of significant wins on that front. Wisconsin, for sure. Seems like there was at least one other significant win. Florida? I haven’t been able to keep up with all of it.
Anyway your point is well made, they are doing everything they can to prevent people from voting - but I’m not sure how well those efforts have succeeded in specifically swing states.
In the other hand, covid deaths hit red areas and demographics at something like 2:1 compared to blue districts. At the tight margins you bring up, that can be a significant factor.
Do not turn a blind eye to just how unpopular biden really is
Dude has nothing on Hillary in 2016 (though that’s not helpful since she lost). The fact is, no one in the Democratic Party with national prominence is particularly well-liked. Bernie Sanders is probably the closest but for a litany of reasons I think that’s a no go.
The convention hasn’t even happened yet.
The convention is a formality in the process. It’s not supposed to be, but it’s just too late in the election cycle. It would be absolute chaos. We’ll be arguing about who while Trump is campaigning.
If Biden did the right thing and bowed out and supported whoever replaced him as the candidate, it would work.
Maybe. I could see it with Harris since she shares the incumbency. I worry about her ability to overcome misogyny and racism without a powerful and uplifting message like Obama had. I’d love to be proven wrong in this front, but the post-Obama era has lifted the veil on a level of racism that I didn’t even believe existed here 20 years ago, and I’m really concerned it has become even more mainstream since. I still think if Biden steps down she is our best chance.
Whitmer and Newsome both have to overcome obscurity, and Whitmer has the misogyny issue as well. Newsome I think has a head start there, but it’s going to take a lot of work and money to make either of them household names in Georgia and Pennsylvania. As a Michigander, I think Whitmer has been an outstanding Governor and would make a great President, but I don’t think she has the recognition right now.
Look, I think it’s too late, but if Biden stepped down I’d do my meager best to help elect whoever is the nominee, but I think out of all the risky paths in front of us, Biden is the least risky.
At the end of the day, I don’t care who the nominee is as long as trump doesn’t win.
Biden gave her a massive finger and then left her to languish. She could have been out front getting face time, spreading that message. Doing campaign-y things.
I think the only thing I recall her stumping for is some abortion stuffs.
As a side note she could always campaign on law and order :/ or maybe reformed law and order. The violent crime rate is way down, and they’d could campaign on that along with no-contest policing reforms… like mandated training standards to receive that juicy federal funding. (Deescalation, mental health. Mandated liability insurance. Possibly “preventative care” therapy. Active shooter……. Fuck Uvalde Cops. My level 1 security guards have better fucking training and they’re contract security guards.)
It’s true that Biden really put her in a corner. She hasn’t really been able to differentiate herself in a meaningful way, and maybe that was strategic. It’s not that uncommon for vice presidents, but usually there is at least some distinctive role or signature issue that the VP works on.
Biden acted as an informal whip in Congress and as a diplomat in some international issues as VP. Pence acted as a media surrogate to the religious right, and as an advisor on appointments. I think he was once considered the most powerful VP of all time.
Harris reminds me of Veep, the Julia Dryfus show. I can’t recall a single signature issue or import role she has played in the past four years.
The truth of. ps is that you only pick a VP that stands out if you need them to for some reason. Usually you go with the bland people who couldn’t challenge you in a primary if they wanted too, because you want to avoid controversy.
Biden picked her for the law and order crowd because for some reason people see him as soft on that. She’s a prosecutor.
Also, she’s black and he’s soft there too.
There’s a few other groups there, but you get the idea.
Still she’s not particularly controversial. What that really means is she’s boring. I’ll take it over Biden if he’ll stump for her; in a heart beat. He’ll right now I’d take a cardboard cut out of Reagan over Trump.
He’s already got the incumbent advantage baked into his polling and he’s losing badly. Nevermind that 3 of the last 7 incumbents lost. The incumbent advantage, if there is one for the presidency, doesn’t seem to be particularly strong.
Maybe the kid killed himself so he wouldn’t have to slowly die of heat stroke because his idiot parents left him alone in a car (edit: WITH A LOADED GUN WHAT THE FUCK) in a Walmart parking lot.
So, we take the magazine diet of the month approach yet again? Instead of learning healthy spending habits, we barge in with the extremest measures we can find, inevitably fail and try the next needlessly extreme thing, repeating the cycle until we have lost so much self esteem in the process that we tell ourselves that we just aren't made to save money?
Well then, this website over there told me that they have got shiny new shirts reduced from 1899,- to just 15 bucks, but only if I order 65 of them in the next.two minutes. Take my credit card! I'll start no spending year right after! Pinky promise!
I see articles like this every couple of weeks and I get the impression that they’re trying to find alternative explanations for trends caused by poverty. It’s hard to develop let alone understand or recognize healthy spending habits when your choices are to pay bills or go hungry.
Thats the issue. Not only with poverty, but with overspending in general. Usually, money savin measures take time to become noticeable, since there is always some inertia in money flows (things that were already die when the saving measures were started, subscriptions, etc), so people who overspent will immediately see a drastic downfall of their living standards when they start saving, but still overshoot their budget for at least a few weeks usually, until all the overspending is paid off and the savings start to kick in. That's a really dangerous phase because people often struggle to understand if they are doing it right or not.
Maybe we need to rethink economics in a way they don’t require an endless growth of the population like we’re a cancer to the earth. Maybe Bezos could pay a bit more than 1.1% in taxes, an extra 1% would free a cool couple of billion for retirement. And so could Musk, and same with the companies, a bit from Amazon, a bit from Microsoft, and the rest of S&P500…
I’m all for a bit of population decline. The system needs to crash to get rebalanced.
Think of how affordable housing would be. Cities would suck (look at how long Detroit has taken to recover from losing something like 2/3 of its population) but suburbs would thrive.
Worst thing is, even though population grows, the retirement age does aswell.
Having more people now just mean higher expectations from the generation after them. It is just a temporary fix thate current generation hopes to throw onto the next and hopefully die before it all gets fucked.
A positive feedback loop (and this is not meant in a positive way).
Wasn’t planning to respond to the negativity wave, but white supremacism? Huh?
I guess some Muricans are so oversensitive on the issue they see racism in everything. I come from a country that barely has any black/hispanic population at all (simply historically), and same with any sort of supremacism - we don’t have racial aspect as a cornerstone of our culture, and I can barely see any intersection here.
Do you mean I supposedly suggest for white people specifically to get more babies to ethnically cleanse the world or something? Because I never said or meant that, and couldn’t care less about people of which race or origin improve the reproduction rates.
"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog. You need a license to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father. " - Keanu Reeves as Tod Higgins, Parenthood (1989).
Plus, now we’re not allowed to abort them even if we know we don’t have the mental, emotional, or financial capacity to take care of them, and it looks like they are trying to make contraceptives illegal again, so I have a feeling we’ll be seeing more and more stories like this.
Guns kept in a car usually aren’t required to be locked up if the car itself is locked. There’s not much point having a gun in the car if you have to ask the carjacker to wait nicely while you fetch your gun from its locked container.
Guns kept in a car usually aren’t required to be locked up if the car itself is locked.
This varies widely from state to state, with different requirements for loaded vs unloaded, concealed carry permits, and accessibility requirements.
There’s not much point having a gun in the car if you have to ask the carjacker to wait nicely while you fetch your gun from its locked container.
So use a quick-access safe mounted in the vehicle or get a concealed carry license and keep it secured in a holster with you. No excuse for leaving it accessible to a child.
Here’s the breakdown for the most populous states, which would cover most people in the US. This also includes the most restrictive states in terms of gun laws like NY and CA, so most will be more permissive than this.
California: Prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle unless it is in a locked container or the trunk. Concealed carry permit holders must adhere to these rules.
Texas: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
Florida: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
New York: Generally restrictive. In New York City, it is prohibited to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle. In other parts of the state, a permit is required, and rules can be strict.
Pennsylvania: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
Illinois: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
Ohio: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
Georgia: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
North Carolina: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
Michigan: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.
I was just quoting the actual laws… As a concealed carry permit holder it’s a pretty important responsibility to know how/where it’s legal to store your loaded handgun.
Agreed - that’s probably the easier way to charge the father in this case. Focus on child endangerment, reckless abandonment, etc. I’m just saying a gun charge probably isn’t the best path to conviction in this case.
I haven’t made any arguments to “bad faith”. I just saw OP saying the father should face gun charges, and that’s a topic I know a bit about, so I thought I’d chime in with a quick fact check. I never said the father wasn’t a piece of shit or that he shouldn’t go to jail.
No, you weren’t, you wrote your comment completely ignoring the actual context.
Regardless of that, carjacking and the ability for anyone to stop one, is not going to yield great results if someone is already pointing a gun at you. No one is really prepared to deal with opposing one; the best thing to do is just get out and get to safety.
A knife or a gun is equally efficient at intimidating and damaging someone. You aren’t going to have the time or awareness to draw a gun before they stab you.
You shouldnt be allowed to guns at all, especially not unsecured in a car. If your toddler then shoots itself with the gun you definitely should face charges.
Agreed. I was just quoting the actual law. I store loaded guns unsecured in my car and home, but I live alone and don’t have kids or allow kids in my car or home. Obviously the situation would be different if I did.
I get your point, but the only person in the car was a 2 year old. Surely you don’t expect the 2 year old to stop a car jacker with the gun, so it should be locked while no one is operating the vehicle, at least?
Agreed. Unfortunately the law and common sense don’t always align. Maybe the father could be charged with reckless endangerment or some sort of neglect - I’m only saying there probably isn’t a direct firearm storage statute that was violated here.
Edit: Sadly, it’d probably be easier to charge him for leaving the kid in the car based on how hot it was, with the gun storage issue maybe as an aggravating factor.
“HFC does not comment on membership or internal proceedings.”
Somebody should go ask howler monkey #2 if she just got kicked out. (Not that it matters, they’re both howler monkey #2, and in any case I forget which one already left.)
If my kids did that I’d be perfectly fine with them getting kicked out of school or even if the teachers wanted to press charges. I know teachers can be shitty but this is completely uncalled for unless they were actually doing those things
If they actually did those things, it wouldn’t be slander.
If I were to guess, I’d take it as “unless the kids knew/suspected with good reason they were doing those things”, because that’s how I would feel about it at least. I would still want to talk to them about appropriate responses and make sure they knew they could trust me, but kids don’t always know how to bring up adults’ misbehavior.
If it’s just a fluke, that would feel like an ends justifying the means situation.
I’d like to first of all say that I don’t see any reason to believe the teachers did this. I hope the police proceed under that assumption unless evidence leading otherwise turns up. My original comment was about why someone might not want their children punished as severely, if the teachers did in fact do these things to their students, but I don’t think it’s likely (and really hope it’s not the case).
It would be harassment whether or not it’s true, so the teachers would still have reason to sue.
That’s true, but it’s probably not a huge concern. Middle schoolers under that kind of pressure will react without thought to consequences and if their most grievous response is to harass their abusers, most courts would probably recognize that. I would still explain to them that they can trust me and that I’ll believe them if they tell me something like this in the future, before it gets to this point.
I just hope something happens with their parents too, because kids who do things like this tend to have shitty parents.
slander and mobbing. Those are prosecutable offenses.
No they aren’t. Slander is a civil tort (not criminal / not prosecutable), and “Mobbing” isn’t even a legal term, but to the best of my understanding is synonymous with “assembling”, which is constitutionally protected.
At worst, a student could be sued by a teacher, and these are middle schoolers, so it would be the parents being sued.
I think “assembling” in this context refers to collecting personal information about someone with the intend to steal someones identity. So yes, I guess the teachers could maybe sue for identity theft or online impersonation as well even if creating a fake social media profile for someone without their knowledge in itself does not seem to be a crime on a federal level. There seem to be some state laws concerning this tho - in Texas for example that can be a felony if I get this right. But also yes, that should be the parents’ problem, since minors are usually not criminally liable.
If so the kids might just got lucky in that regard. There seems to be or at least there was a bill in Pennsylvania that would make online impersonation a crime with a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a 5000$ fine. I assume that this story is likely to fuel the discussion about this bill again, if it has not already been enacted into law yet.
Man they bringin RICO against these kids. “Assembling”. Mobbing someone means attacking them as a group. One of the kids is gonna flip and he’s gonna go life the rest of his life in Timbuktu.
If my kids did that I’d be perfectly fine with them getting kicked out of school or even if the teachers wanted to press charges.
Just a reminder that these are middle schoolers, if it were your kid, and a teacher decided to sue, it would be you getting sued for the behavior of a child you didn’t raise correctly.
So don’t try to take the high road here. If your kid did something like this, it would be because you were a shitty parent who didn’t teach them basic right and wrong.
“I’d let the state punish them on my behalf” is just revealing the issue: you expect other people to raise your kids.
People seem to think we have the ability to control our kids to a huge degree.
Plenty of children with amazing, loving upbringings turn into garbage people. And some of the nicest most kind people I know were raised by abusive scum.
Plus teenage years are difficult for most kids as they find their place in the world and their friends have almost as much influence as parents at that time.
You also can’t know what teenagers are doing all the time. Especially at school.
Furthermore some people seem to just be born assholes and it doesn’t matter how you raise them.
I’m going to assume you don’t have teenagers. They can change into a different person overnight once the hormones kick in.
Yeah, it’s one of those things a parent can’t control, undue influences. Not just media, but other students and even adults who find their way into a child’s life and attempt to influence them.
I dislike the nature argument since it’s often used to entirely sidestep the nurture argument. I think that maybe it might be better as a society to restrict children(not legally) from, or atleast reduce their usage of, social networking and social media sites, atleast until their teens.
The idea that parents actually have or even should have complete control over their kids is laughable. Did you perfectly obey all of your parents wishes while you were young, even when they were not watching?
He’s not talking about obedience, he’s talking about liability. There’s a difference between raising your kid to take out the garbage on command and raising them to be functional people. These parents failed that second aspect. And yes, they are in fact responsible for letting their little sociopaths out of the house.
This isn’t 2+2=5. It’s not forgetting to pay for your groceries one time. It’s not even tying your shoe laces in a knot instead of a nice bow. Those are mistakes.
This is a group of kids setting out to humiliate and potentially incriminate teachers at their school for apparently no good goddamn reason according to this article. This is a group of sociopaths failed by their parents. Yes, the children should be punished. The parents should also be punished. Idk how that punishment should go, but IMHO it should involve mandatory community service at a soup kitchen every weekend for a year or two.
No, even good kids are capable of making much more severe mistakes depending on their environment. To really judge we’d have to go through their social media exposure whatever trends/cultures were going around the school at the time.
Don’t forget, this is America where a former President and current candidate supported Qanon. People, especially kids, are vulnerable to being misled.
People, especially kids, are vulnerable to being misled.
And this is exactly the time to teach them that this is not acceptable behavior. Sometimes, the best lessons in life are when you learn what to NOT do.
Reading some of these responses, I swear these people are armchair parents. There’s an entire science of nature vs nurture. Nurture also includes peers and group acceptance and even the best of kids sometimes do horrible, shitty, stupid things for nurture of their peers.
It’s like they do not want to entertain that this happens. Head. In. The. Sand.
Source: Am parent with a good kid who is learning to push boundaries, entering the teen years soon, and sometimes does stupid shit even when I taught him better. I was also the good kid that did stupid fucking shit every once in a while despite having parents who taught me better/right v wrong.
Clearly they were already punished, and inappropriately so. Nobody “taught” the students to act like little sociopaths in the same way nobody “teaches” your puppy to shit on the floor. This is, in fact, the direct result of a lacking education. This education is not taught in schools outside maybe pre-k, as children are expected to act civilly in a classroom, let alone middle schoolers.
This attack has nothing to do with being “functional people”.
I am not much of a functional person — can’t kept a job, terrible social life, etc — and I would never run this kind of attack on a person let alone join a group to do it en masse.
Being functional has nothing to do with this thing. This is about evil.
I suppose that it’s mostly a psychological thing, and Lord only knows what works well there, but it seems like it’d be a lot less arduous and not that much more effective to just set a low monthly budget for nonessentials than to make it 0.
You misunderstand, like a half dozen of the current high yield mirv ones could end most life on earth. This is just making them faster and as always the Pentagon lied and got caught.
As dumb as it sounds, mutually assured destruction does have the perk of keeping everyone from using nukes. If modern countermeasures prevent that, it isnt a deterrent anymore. Updating these nukes improves the likelihood we dont have to use them.
Relevant example: russias tanks. They are outdated and weren’t adequately improved over decades. and are now getting wrecked by consumer grade drones and guys with while fancy, in all honesty, second grade hand me down rocket launchers. Before we knew this fact, they were a reasonable deterrent to not fucking with russia. Now, not so much.
Now in 2024, “he’s not Trump” and “he beat Trump” are the best reasons they can give to compel people to vote for him. That’s nearly double the number of achievements compared to last time!
He probably would’ve done better than Hillary. He was pretty well liked in 2016. Between the memes and the momentum from the Obama administration, I think he may have won.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.