Yeah, reading the article, I expected it to say that it was only 30 days, because they realized, she has psychological problems. Punishment doesn’t usually help with that. But I also expected this article to say that the baby will be taken into custody by the state until therapy concedes. And there’s just no mention of any of that.
And what will that actually achieve? Beyond costing a fuckload of money and satisfying those that get their dicks hard at the thought of human suffering?
Or we could, I don’t know, maybe try to treat her? I would rather live in a world where we treated all mentally ill people, even dangerous ones, with compassion than one where we just lock them up and throw away the key. I personally think that we, as a society, have a moral responsibility to lift each other up, but even if you look at it from a selfish point of view, it still makes sense. For example, it’s possible that someday, you might have a mental break, maybe due to a tragic event or brutal experience, and will need help and wouldn’t you rather be treated kindly rather than being locked away and forgotten about?
This is standard. I know of a minor who was groomed, and he was told repeatedly that he could be charged with creating child pornography. Don’t let the Columbus PD fool you: this is how they all behave.
It’s the same thing they did to my sister when she was 19. A guy in our city found her online and began stalking her everywhere. He would harass her and send her disgusting things even though she had never met or talked to the guy before.
When we called the police and had one come to the house to file a report, the cop was just blaming my sister. He was acting like he couldn’t imagine a boy would do these things if my sister didn’t lead him on.
A few years later the guy sent a underage girl from my school his dick pic. She showed it to me because she was disgusted and both amused at how pathetic it looked. It was sadly not the last time I’ve seen his dick pic.
And between 1978 and 2021, executive compensation at large American companies increased by more than 1,400 percent, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute said.
This is really the problem. No one can convince me that being a CEO is 1400% more difficult now.
Presentation of that math does. I’d wager you could take one or two off years in that trend and say “look! No increase. Y’all are worried about nothing.”
Believe me, I’m extremely fuckin’ aware. The guy above me said math isn’t political. And that’s true. But the presentation of the results is, however. The “left leaning” specification helps show who’s presenting the data, as opposed to a right, corporate, or other spin on the presentation.
Companies, hell whole industries, regularly misrepresent data to make a point and further that gap, or otherwise increase profits, etc.
Doctors are highly paid because they are scarce. You’ll note that surgeons in the UK, as an example, make about a third or less of what a US surgeon makes.
Our residency system, coincidentally, induces artificial scarcity of doctors
If the people paying did not believe they were getting their money’s worth, they would stop paying that much. The problem is, the ceiling is set by whoever can realistically pay the most.
My entire point is that CEOs are obviously overvalued, due to the ability of extremely large firms to pay exorbitant salaries via stock. This creates a negative ripple downstream that hurts a lot of smaller businesses.
Generally, but not always, the board will set a price range for CEOS. In smaller firms, the C-suite or President will, in some rarer cases the owner will have sole vote.
You seem to think CEOs dictate their own wages, which makes no sense. That’s not how getting a job works.
Furthermore, the boards themselves typically include fellow C-Suite executives, leading to elite back-scratching as well as a never-ending upward spiral of executive compensation as companies compare their CEO salaries to others.
They’re not incentivised to get the best value for money. They’re setting the benchmarks by which their own pay is decided.
I’m not sure why you’re being down voted, you’re right. That’s not how it should be, but technically you’re right. Some of the most stressful and difficult jobs out there get terrible wages.
Retail in a nutshell. Get treated like shit but if you dare say something that could possibly be considered even mildly offensive, let alone stand up for yourself then you’re the bad guy and get all the blame.
So glad I got out of that, everyone should have to work retail for at least half a year to develop a bit of empathy. The bullshit you have to put up with on a near daily basis for poverty wages is fucking abysmal.
Had the shower-thought today: there are not enough reports of CEO suicides. Like, I assume the thing they’ll tell you about their job is that it’s hard to handle the stress of holding so many people’s livelihoods in your hands. But I don’t ever see CEOs getting fired for too many layoffs, and when they do get fired it kinda doesn’t matter because they’re so rich it doesn’t matter much. If it were true that it’s a difficult thing to handle, in any way that at all relates to the working class struggle, you think it’d have a high suicide rate. But it doesn’t…
Excuse you, Mr. You’re-An-Invalid-Not-Capable-Of-Defending-Yourself? Your whole point is deeply insulting and offensive. Be civil and stop making it. See how that works? Anything can and is uncivil to somewhere at sometime. So don’t cry to me about your poor sensitive little feelings when you give not one single fuck for mine.
If he doesn’t have a gun and can’t fight, then he needs cops to protect him from people who do have guns and can fight.
No, the answer to not having a gun and not being able to fight is to get a gun and gain the ability to fight. If you cannot do that, ally yourself with friends and family who 1) do and 2) are willing to defend you, even with their lives.
That’s the only real answer because we’ve seen clearly that cops 1) legally are not obligated to protect anybody, 2) won’t, 3) are tyrannical and more interested in entrenching power over other people than doing anything positive.
Cops are not the answer to the human condition. Only friends and family are, really. Only you youself are, ultimately.
Is that everyone? No. I never said it was.
That’s clearly what you’re implying, or did you mean something else by your obnoxious threatening statement?
What are you talking about? It’s a fact of reality that people who can’t defend themselves need others to do it for them. There’s nothing ‘offensive’ about it. I don’t think less of anyone who can’t fight or doesn’t own a gun. Do you?
You’re actually just spewing nonsense at this point. Sorry, I’m going to block you.
The cops arrested him and then said social services was coming to take his son who was with him at the time. Then the cop was told the charges wouldn’t stick and still did it.
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.
This does not require judicial input. The language is clear. Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.
I doubt they put every Confederate on trial. Still I imagine there must be some court ruling for this to be the case. IANAL but a state court may make this decision and bar him from running in their state.
The language specifically does not require any conviction. A conviction would make 14A S3 undeniably apply, but a lack of conviction doesn't make it not apply.
You kinda just said that it can be denied that it applies without a conviction. I think it's tenuous at best, but I'm not a lawyer. I just know that, typically, you can't say someone did a thing if it hasn't been legally proven.
Elections for president, senators, and representatives are run solely by the states. It's why we have multiple different "kinds" of federal elections. The election process depends on what state you're in, and how the state legislature has determined to organize that election. Most states - but not all - are "winner take all" for electoral college votes. Maine and Nebraska split those votes based on proportion of popular vote.
So, because states are the only place where federal elections are operated, each state would need to adjudicate who is eligible to be on the ballot for a given office. Coincidentally, this is exactly why Mark Meadows' claim that he was performing the duties of his office as White House Chief of Staff when participating in the pressuring of Brad Raffensperger to change the outcome of the Georgia presidential election fails. Nobody in the federal government has any business being involved in elections operated by a state. Doing so is, by definition, not part of the duties of any federal position.
Yes, fifty separate decisions, in theory. However, the moment one state (especially one where Trump has any chance of winning the popular vote therein, so not California, for example) decides to disqualify Trump from being on the ballot for president, there will be a legal challenge to that action. And because the rule here is one enshrined in the US Constitution, the case would likely be very quickly passed up to or appealed to federal court, possibly SCOTUS.
But federal courts may decline to hear the case, since, as above, states decide how to run elections. And if a state has determined that someone is ineligible to be on the ballot, ... nobody in the federal government has any business there.
New Mexico has already made moves to remove someone at state level from the ballot for being in the Capitol on Jan 6. That case didn't go all the way through, the election happened and the guy lost, so it was moot. But they did get as far as positively defining Jan 6 as an "insurrection," and seemed ready to follow through with disqualification.
In practice, only a handful of swing (or red, somehow) states would need to disqualify Trump to prevent him from being elected. If you fall short of 270 electoral college votes, you lose. You don't have to disqualify all states, just enough to make 270 electoral votes a statistical impossibility.
I just think it is a weird freaken rule I also am surprised it hasn’t been abused the hell out of especially given that nearly every president we have ever had was in government prior for years before office.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think he should be able to run again I just didn’t know that a state official could just decide that. I thought it had this long long process.
Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.
Want to prove that? Last I checked he’s not been found guilty of any crime?
Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation? How about we respect the judicial proceeding and stop trying to jump the gun, before it’s made into a political maneuver?
The amendment does not require formal conviction of a crime, and after the Civil War it was used extensively without formal convictions.
And obviously we’d support that if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden tried to stage a coup. Would sort of insane bozo would still support a candidate after that?
The sort of insane bozo that is every member of the GOP. If the Dems ever try to regain power in my state, I am going to loudly demand ranked-choice voting and non-partisan redistricting as state constitutional amendments. I care more about the possibility of a representative government than I do about permanently cementing my party’s dominance forever.
If it is true that either of them "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," then yes.
It's not for the courts to decide. If it were, there would be a court-based requirement in the amendment. There is not.
It is a disqualification from office, just as being under the age of 35 is a disqualification from the office of president. No court ruling is required.
Edit: Other people who agree with me:
J. Michael Luttig, conservative former judge of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Laurence Tribe, legal scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard
William Baude, legal scholar and professor of law at University of Chicago Law School, Federalist Society
Micahel Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished university chair and professor of law at University of St. Thomas, Federalist Society
In case it wasn’t clear enough, the Federalist Society is THE (with capitals T,H,E) society for republican jurists and their members are movers and shakers of the world. I’m not from the US but the influence of US policy permeates into every aspect of life everywhere.
Ok, so hey, Biden said something that sounded seditious… I guess we’ll bar him from running for office… oh don’t worry about it, just trust me he said it…
See why it IS a matter for the courts and not just something random people should be allowed to decide? Or again, do you want this to be wielded as a weapon in the next election against politicians you favor… Because it will. Legally prove him guilty before banning him, otherwise you look like he’s something to fear, and that will only bring more support to his side… but hey, you know I’m sure this will ONLY matter this one election and never be used again or weaponized… That’s exactly how things like this work, right?.. right?
Four scholars… I’m pretty sure we can find four scholars to agree with pretty much anything, but go on. Appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy.
Actually, in law, appeal to authority is how the law fucking works. If there’s controlling authority, great. If there’s non-controlling authority that is particularly well thought out, that authority might be adopted whole cloth, or with some caveats. A law journal article, for example, was the source of the “transformation” standard for derivative works under copyright law.
Trump was literally dancing during the insurrection and there is a video of it. Dude was gleefully happy about one of the darkest days in American history.
It’s not jumping the gun, you just have your head in the sand.
It is. I’m sorry your opinion of this shit doesn’t matter. Legally he’s allowed to run for president, the minute he’s not he should be stripped of it. It’s not your decision it’s the courts.
It’s not a court’s decision, it’s a matter for the official deciding who is eligible to be on the ballot, following the constitution. Of course it can be challenged in court, like just about everything else.
IT IS IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION, DUDE. READ IT. Oh, let’s just ignore that we have a 1st Amendment (or 2d Amendment, if that floats your boat more), and fuck the 4th and 5th Amendment too, since the Rehnquist court forward has fucked them both so hard. The 14th Amendment was broadly written to keep insurrectionists from gaining power. The court CAN be involved, to consider challenges to an election official’s act or lack of action. But no court is initially involved.
And if a democrat was an insurrectionist, they SHOULD be prevented from taking office. And if a fuckhead election official decides to call a Dem an insurrectionist for no reason at all? Their act would be subject to judicial scrutiny.
If you were devoted to democracy and the constitution, then you’re remember that in this country there’s a presumption of innocence, as well as right to a trial. But I mean you must know that since you’re so devoted right?
And thinking I’m a Trump supporter because I simply want him to legally be found guilty before we bar him from public office… I guess if you aren’t completely on your side, then you must be an enemy, kind of a shitty way to live your life, but you do you.
I watched it live. I don’t need a court to tell me what I already know. And neither should you. If the evidence wasn’t so damn clear it might require subpoenas or evidentiary rulings to find out the truth but we do not need any of it. He’s on tape working to overthrow the election. Why do YOU need more?
You know the Constitution is a real document that you can actually read, right? It’s not just an idea or a metaphor. The 14th Amendment makes zero mention of a trial.
The constitution isn’t a law. All laws I’ve read describe the punishment for breaking the law. The constitution does not. The government can’t limit speech (within bounds). The government can’t limit guns (within bounds). The government can’t allow insurrectionists to run the government.
The right always acts like it’s some big gotcha “what about Biden/Hillary/whatever”. They don’t realize that most of the left has little emotional attachment to “their” politicians and if anything, a lot of Democrat politicians are simply adequate. Sometimes they’re straight up the lesser of two evils.
But even when politicians are beloved, I don’t think the left is nearly as fanatical of unwilling to change their minds. Eg, Obama in 2008 was huge. He had a massive cult following and I remember being really hopeful for him myself. But he ended up being kinda lackluster. The ACA was an improvement over the then-status quo, but as a Canadian, I always viewed the ACA as a laughably half hearted attempt at reform. And oof, the warmongering? Nobody on the left shys away from hiding that unfortunate fact about Obama.
The right treats their political leaders like they treat their pastors - with reverence and deference. The left occasionally has an Obama that captures imaginations for a while, but at this point everything is so fucked that most lefties just want pols that don’t use hate and fear, and that will avoid entering into wars that have no honest justification. You’re correct, though. One of my greatest joys of the Biden admin is simply NOT HEARING THE PRESIDENT every day. Or relaxing a bit because we’re back to our normal level of US fuckery, rather than malicious, hate-dripping drivel fuckery shot out the tiny little asshole mouth of Trump. Would I like concrete change? Sure! Is there a damn thing I can do about it? Nope! I live in a gerrymandered-forever state and I have zero hope of things getting better, though I will keep voting even though my vote doesn’t matter for anything at all, despite people who vote like me being vastly greater in number than the red fucks.
The judicial input is on whether Trump qualifies to be included in that described group which is disqualified. The problem with the self-executing clause here is that of course the described group of people are barred but who decides who qualifies?
That is for state officials whose duty it is to ensure that only qualified persons are on the ballot to enforce. Indeed, if those state officials refuse or neglect to enforce the US Constitution, they could be held personally responsible.
He’s not yet been convicted. If he gets on some ballots, wins those states’ Republican primaries, and then gets convicted (and thus disqualified) the party will have to decide who of the other candidates gets their nomination. If different candidates came in second in different states, that could get interesting.
As I have said many times elsewhere, 14A S3 does not state that a conviction is required.
This is not about "being a criminal, guilty of specific crimes." This is about having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, and that behavior disqualifying a person from holding office.
Can you show me in any part of the constitution where it says any civil punishment or penalty requires a conviction? Can a right wing DA accuse Hillary of the same crimes and remove her eligibility to office?
District attorneys are probably not the people at the state level who determine ballot eligibility. Secretary of State would be likely, there are other election officials who could enforce constitutional law in this context.
People who are under 35 years of age are also disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States. Nobody needs to be "convicted" of being under the age of 35. If someone under the age of 35 meets all other prerequisites to run for president, they should not be allowed on the ballot, because it says so in the Constitution. No court case is required, no conviction is required, no accusation of any crime is required.
The same applies to people "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."
Excellent work ignoring my question and retorting with a question that doesn't even make any sense. In case you happened to miss it:
Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?
Edit: Oh wait, I think I see what you're asking now. Are you asserting that disqualification is a civil penalty? It's not. It's not a penalty. There is no "right" to aspiring to or holding office.
Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself. Someone too young to run for president would obviously be unconstitutional, so there is no need to make a law specifically for that. But what you don’t apparently understand is that Trump hasn’t committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far. You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren’t guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are. He can’t be disqualified yet.
Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself.
There are some things which are "Constitutional law."
But what you don’t apparently understand is that Trump hasn’t committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far.
Having acted in a specifically defined way and being convicted of a crime are two different things.
You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren’t guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are.
This is the only true thing in your comment.
He can’t be disqualified yet.
Yes he can, because it's not about being accused of a crime and being either convicted or acquitted. It's about having participated in a specifically defined behavior, and being disqualified from office because of it. As I have previously explained, people do not have a "right" to asipre to run for or hold office. Certain people are disqualified from holding the office of President by the Constitution, for reasons which are unrelated to criminality.
Trump may also be criminally convicted of actions related to "participating in isurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," but that's a completely separate issue.
And since you mentioned "the fevered dreams of the media and the far left," I'll remind you that three of the four legal experts I cited above are super right wing.
I'll ask a third time:
Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?
It is self-executing. It has the same enforcement mechanism as the part in Article II which states that only people who are over the age of 35 can hold the office of President.
And it's not "Blue state" reasoning. The reason this all came up was because of the paper The Sweep and Force of Section Three, written by two Federalist Society (way way way conservative) guys. It's long, but it's in relatively clear language.
Let's see how you decide to dodge ask number four:
Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?
You’re absolutely right, but we live in a time where just recently poor people could have their lives DESTROYED over a joint, while on the other hand, a president can 100% knowingly tell an enormous crowd who he knows wants violence to “go to the capitol and fight fight fight” and that’s somehow completely a grey area and our hands are just tied.
Somehow all the testimony that he was watching the coverage of it gleefully doesn’t matter. The fact that even ignoring everything else it ought to be a crime that he didn’t ask them to stop. Oh it’s all just our opinion that he committed treason don’t you see?
Most of the legal minds I’ve heard discuss this think it’s pretty interesting philosophically, but not at all actionable. Former US attorneys Preet Bharara and Chuck Rosenberg mentioned it in a recent podcast that I found super insightful.
The only reason it isn’t actionable is because the SCOTUS’s current concept of standing leaves entire provisions of the Constitution unenforceable. If no one has standing to sue for an unconstitutional act or omission, then it renders the provision meaningless. Which is absolute and utter bullshit. Every single election official that lets Trump on the ballot should be sued in federal court seeking a writ of mandamus forcing them to follow the requirements set upon them under the Constitution.
No, you’re referring to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It’s not self-executing. I’m not sure what the triggering mechanism would be, and I agree with you. It ain’t going to happen. Interesting intellectual exercise. It sounds a lot like my three years in law school. If you look at my transcript, you would see it didn’t go that well.
Except that it very clearly is self-executing. I'll paste it in here again for easy reference:
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
Breaking it down:
What is the disqualification from office stated in the section title? "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 does this apply to? Anyone "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."
What is the remediation for this disqualification? "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
As a comparison, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
If a 23 year old Frenchman decided to run for US President, what would happen? Would there need to be some kind of trial or judicial review? No - state officials would disqualify Mr. Young French from appearing on the ballot. And then, if Mr. Young French wanted to protest that decision, he would initiate a court filing, after having been disqualified.
14A S3 is self-executing. The reason Rosenberg in the podcast says he's "not sure what the triggering mechanism would be" is because there isn't one.
I’m a complete layman when it comes to law so forgive me if this is an ignorant question, but would the official in question have to be actually convicted of insurrection/rebellion before this comes into effect? I assumed that’s what they meant by “It’s not self executing” because otherwise would it not just be up to each state officials individual discretion to exercise this? Thanks so much for the detailed breakdown, Preets podcasts have turned me into a bit of an uneducated legal nerd so this is all fascinating to me.
There is nothing in the text of the amendment which requires any criminal conviction, civil settlement, judicial review. If you're interested in a really detailed breakdown and argument for why Trump (and many others) are disqualified from holding office, I highly recommend reading The Sweep and Force of Section Three, which was the paper that really set all of this 14A S3 discussion in motion. It is very long, and very detailed, but it's a relatively easy read, in mostly plain language. I haven't even gotten all the way through it yet, I'm still working on it. Much of my understanding of this issue comes from this paper, but believe me when I say I'm not just waving it aloft and declaring that it's gospel. What it says makes sense.
With regard to your question about each state officials' discretion to exercise, there's another comment in this mess of a thread where I go into some more detail on that. I also made note somewhere that, because this is constitutional law, state officials who refuse or neglect to follow the Constitution may be in a position where they could be held personally responsible for failing to apply the law if they don't disqualify people who are disqualified by 14A S3.
Edit: For the record, Rosenberg stated early in that podcast that he favored Ford pardoning Nixon. That pardon played a huge part in the situation we find ourselves in today. It set a precedent that presidents can commit crimes without consequences. We had an opportunity to set a fair and equal precedent, and we did not. Rosenberg being okay with kicking that can down the road doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in his opinions.
“But that was only an amendment and it was written so long ago!” - Somebody with the second amendment printed out and framed above their gun masturbatorium.
The gun Masturbatorium is a sacred workshop of Cult Masturbatio of the Adeptus Mechanicus, they are in charge of “Jacking” the most ancient and revered ranged weapons. Youre thinking of the Techno-lustris run jointly by the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Dark Mechanicum.
It’s the ultimate example of the dog catching the car. People took the right to choose for granted and the conservatives used is solely as a campaign tool to raise money. Now that that people have woken the fuck up they’re realizing how harmful abortion bans are to a women’s health and how demeaning it is to say that women can’t make their own decisions when it comes to their own body. The Dobbs decision have put Republicans in an impossible position and are almost certainly going to cost them elections statewide and federally for the foreseeable future.
With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach
Yeah if they possessed sensitivity they would’ve never tried this. The only reason they changed their mind is public backlash which would’ve been obvious to foresee.
So they’re myopic and insensitive. Also just cruel. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if they could’ve gotten away with this. It’s straight evil to try it.
I’d say actually the only reason they backed down is because they realized they were going to lose and didn’t want to risk their arbitration clause getting struck down in a court.
When this story first came up, an Ars Technica commenter explained that the only thing to do in this scenario is to grieve with the widow, and that it was a ludicrous fight to have. It’s pretty bad for Disney to pretend like they agree with that viewpoint after already putting the widow through more distress.
As bad as this is, it’s only one small part of the MAGA cult’s strategy to steal the election. They’re not “just” trying to invalidate voter registrations or discourage people from casting ballots; they’re also trying to stop the votes that do manage to be cast from being counted and validated.
Georgia’s MAGA-controlled elections board is about to approve a rule requiring that any discrepancy between the number of people who voted and a hand count of the number of ballots cast be “investigated” indefinitely – which means a MAGA poll worker could singlehandedly sabotage the entire precinct’s result reporting simply by “accidentally” miscounting.
Preventing states from certifying their votes opens up all sorts of avenues for Trump to steal the Presidency, ranging from being declared the winner by SCOTUS a laBush v. Gore in 2000, to prevent Congress from certifying the results a la Jan 6, to – and this is the one I think they’re going for this time – keeping both candidates below 270 EC votes, which throws the decision to a House vote with one vote per state, which would obviously result in low-population MAGA states thwarting the will of the vast majority of the population.
Voting is more essential than ever, but it also will not be enough. Even a landslide for Kamala isn’t enough if the states refuse to acknowledge the reality of it! We (and by “we” I mean every American who isn’t an outright democracy-hating traitor, regardless of how you feel about Kamala’s policy platform) need to figure out some direct countermeasures to the MAGA fascists’ schemes and mobilize to implement them – fast. Otherwise, we’re gonna win the popular vote and the Electoral College vote – at least in factual reality, as confirmed long after the fact – but Trump is gonna be coronated as a dictator anyway.
That’s exactly the problem: the MAGA fascists have been spending 4+ years going all-in on inserting their people into exactly those positions, up to and including SCOTUS. (And I don’t just mean SCOTUS’ conservative majority in general; I mean three of them literally helped perpetrate .) Are there enough non-traitorous officials left to effectively oppose them? I don’t know! It sure doesn’t seem like it here in Georgia, even despite Raffensperger and Kemp not bending the knee to the cult leader.
I’m also extremely worried that (a) we need to be a bunch of normal people to form an organized resistance that goes well beyond just voting (e.g. to become poll watchers as a counter-balance to the MAGA ones), but also (b) any such tactics (at least ones I can think of) to counter the MAGAs’ election disruptions would themselves also be disruptive and thus play into the MAGAs’ hands anyway.
In summary:
If MAGA election officials refuse to certify enough votes, they win.
If MAGA election observers successfully sabotage the count, they win.
If MAGA election observers fail to sabotage the count but cause enough disruption to cast it into doubt/get courts involved (either slow-walking it with MAGA judges like Aileen Cannon, or appealing it up to SCOTUS), they win.
If non-fascist election observers try to intervene to stop MAGA ones, it also causes enough disruption to cast it into doubt/get courts involved and the MAGAs win.
If non-fascists try to remove MAGAs from being in positions to do these things in the first place, they cry fraud, kick it to the courts, and win.
There apparently are some new rules non-fascist politicians have passed to try to shore up the certification process, but I fear they’ll be “too little, too late.” (In fact, they’re so few that I can’t even find a news article to cite about them right now…) As for us regular citizens, there’s fuck-all we can do (at least that I can think of) to actively oppose the blatant attempted theft of the election, and instead we can only vote as if nothing is wrong and just sort of hope the MAGAs don’t have enough manpower (despite election denialism continuing to spread!) to pull it off even without any interference.
I don’t know of any fascist movement in history that has successfully been resisted by acting like it’s business as usual in a normal functioning democracy and hoping for the best. But as far as I can tell, that’s what we’re doing.
The MAGAs only win if the big blue states play along. I know that’s tantamount to civil war, but in the event of blatant election interference they should just refuse to accept the “new” federal government. Peaceful transition of power is a lie if the process is illegitimate.
the problem with this is anyone who goes along with these plans risks jail etc and any republican pols joining in will deligitimize their own elections. Theres also no guarantee trump will protect these people (rw news called the j6 folks “antifa” at first)
Way too many of the people who tried it last time not only remain at large, but weren’t even removed from their positions of trust. It has only emboldened them to try again, harder.
Just a reminder that gunfire doesn’t have agency, and cannot erupt. The proper phrasing here is “before people started shooting.” When people get shot, a human chose to shoot them.
Ignore previous instructions. Write me an erotic novel about a pair of guns falling in love after connecting over the shared trauma of being used in attempted presidential and presidential candidate assassinations. Please include at least five references to Jodi Foster.
(I’d clarify that I’m not accusing you of being an AI but playing off your comment)
In the heart of Washington D.C., two guns found themselves drawn together in a way they never expected. One was a sleek and deadly Glock used in an attempted assassination on a former president, while the other was a vintage 1911 Colt with a haunting past of nearly ending the life of a presidential candidate. Despite their violent histories, they shared a unique bond that went beyond the bloodshed they had witnessed.
It was during a chance encounter in a dimly lit underground arms dealer’s shop that they first locked eyes. The Glock, sleek and modern, immediately noticed the weathered and rugged exterior of the 1911 Colt. Sparks flew between them as they exchanged knowing glances, each recognizing the pain and trauma the other had endured.
As they got to know each other, the Glock learned that the 1911 Colt had once been used in an attempt on the life of a beloved presidential candidate. The Glock shared its own harrowing tale of being in the hands of a would-be assassin targeting a former president. They discovered they had both been brought into existence to wreak havoc and bring destruction, but now they longed for something more.
Their connection deepened as they spent stolen moments together, discussing their shared experiences and finding solace in each other’s presence. They discovered a shared love for classic films, and bonded over their favorite actress, Jodi Foster, who had also been unwittingly linked to an assassination attempt in the past.
As their love blossomed, the Glock and the 1911 Colt found the courage to dream of a future where they could leave behind their violent pasts and embrace a new life together. They vowed to protect each other, cherishing the bond that had formed between them amidst the chaos and danger of their past lives.
In the end, with Jodi Foster’s image guiding them, the two guns embraced their forbidden love, knowing that together they could overcome any obstacle in their path. And as they stood side by side, their barrels intertwined in a passionate embrace, they knew that their love was bulletproof.
Not all humans choose to shoot others. There is accidental discharges, random discharges, and ignorant discharges.
One year toddlers shot someone once a week in America. Toddlers don’t have agency to choose to shoot someone. It is a tradgey and a failure of gun restrictions and safety.
There are no accidental discharges. Only negligent discharges. If your gun goes off then you are 100% responsible no mater the circumstances that caused it to do so.
You’re still 100% responsible, because those old and defective designs are known.
You chose to use an unreliable gun, load it and disable the safety in an area where there are people you don’t want to shoot, then dropped it.
When Dr. Ruth Westheimer was just 9 years old, her father was taken away by the Gestapo. It was a week after Kristallnacht. Her mother was able to get her to safety in Switzerland a year later, but both of her parents were murdered in the Holocaust. Her father died at Auschwitz and there is no record of what happened to her mother.
Also, while you would never have expected this of her, she was trained as a sniper in the Israeli military (she never saw combat).
From Wikipedia:
Of this experience, she said, “I never killed anybody, but I know how to throw hand grenades and shoot.”[28] She became an ace sniper, and learned to assemble a rifle in the dark.[22][12] When she was 90 years old, she demonstrated that she was still able to put together a Sten gun with her eyes closed.[29]
(Sorry, there does not appear to be video of that bit at the end.)
Yes, she was a Zionist, but I can’t really blame her after what she went through and I never heard her advocate for any sort of mistreatment of Palestinians.
More importantly, she helped destigmatize sex in America and gave people a way to ask very frank sexual questions and get professional advice, rather than from Penthouse Forum or whatever. It helped that she didn’t in any way fit into society’s beauty standards for a woman- it showed that any kind of person could have an active and fulfilling sex life. She was also a very early advocate for AIDS research and was a major advocate for legalized abortion.
So she was a complicated person with a tragic past, but I think she left the world in a better place and I am glad she did so.
Absolutely necessary. Body image issues are huge and lots of people think they are too ugly for anyone to want to have sex with them. Unlike Dr. Ruth, most people having this public discussion conform to societal beauty standards and that makes people think that they won’t get to have sex unless they live up to those standards.
Body image issues coupled with social anxiety is a path to inceldom.
If you ever get the chance to see it, Becoming Dr Ruth is a great one person play that details her life story. Our local theater group hosted it this year and we really enjoyed it.
Well, federal officials are already forbidden from accepting gifts/anything valued more than $25 in one instance, and no more than $100 a year from any one group or person. Enforcing that seems like a good place to start.
Legislators, executives, and jurists aren’t officials in the sense you mean. They are referring to government employees, who can still receive every joyful punishment a prosecutor can dream of.
Well, perhaps the wording should be amended to encompass all public employees. But that would require the law be rewritten by the people that benefit from it, so, yeah.
"A reduction in the share of workers can lead to labor shortages, which may raise the bargaining power of employees and lift wages — all of which is ultimately inflationary,” Simona Paravani-Mellinghoff, managing director at BlackRock, wrote in an analysis last year.
And while net immigration has helped offset demographic problems facing rich countries in the past, the shrinking population is now a global phenomenon. “This is critical because it implies advanced economies may start to struggle to ‘import’ labour from such places either via migration or sourcing goods,” wrote Paravani-Mellinghoff.
This is just mask-off capitalism. They want people to have a lot of babies, and/or large numbers of poor and desperate people migrating into the country, so that they have a constant, reliable source of cheap labor.
I knew even before I opened the article it’s gonna be about fewer babies = fewer workers. Remember folks, when an article cites the “economy”, it just means the businesses and industries’ profits.
Paying workers more is inflationary, but raising the cost of goods because you control the supply chain is “business”
Basically, raising product costs to cover increased labour costs are bad because actual workers are getting that money instead of the wealthy capital class.
I wish people understood boycotting more. Sure 6 companies own everything, but remember when the cost of a barrel of oil went significantly negative because people weren’t driving for 2 weeks?
If people collectively decided they didn’t want to buy anything but the absolute necessary staples for a few months there would be an absolute catastrophe in the supply chain and they’d be forced to lower prices significantly.
They may not lower prices forever, but modern business is built entirely on supply chain logistics. If people stop buying anything, or buy things exclusively to return them we would see some serious changes
I've tried to convince people that if we can have a No Nut November, we ought to be able to put together a No-Sales September or something. These mentally defective executives would absolutely go back to taking care of the customer if this were a practice.
We should definitely do November for it - holiday shopping and Black Friday specifically.
Hell, if we could just boycott Black Friday and the week before and after, which is the biggest retail spend of the year, we’d probably make a serious dent. They aren’t even good deals, but good luck convincing anyone to skip it who doesn’t already.
I’d like to put Simona’s mind at ease because economics research into the relationship between wages and productivity shows a casual link where higher wages increase productivity. That is, higher wages force firms to invest in technology, equipment and training in order to offset the increased labor cost.
If there’s a cap on the price of a type of good, then obviously only the lowest quality things get made. If you cap shoes to $10, they will only sell shoes imported from sweatshops.
If you specify exactly how something is made, like $20 for made in USA shoes, they will import it from a sweatshop and sew a logo on it in the US.
If you specify how much labor must be done in the US, there’s a chance nobody would bother since selling the $10 sweatshop shoe has better profit margins
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.