Remember when Trump raped a 13 year old girl and then settled out of court, then a few years later he said that people who settle out of court are obviously guilty?
Everything Trump says has a little asterisk above it which is “*except when I do it” - except he probably doesn’t know about asterisks. They’re pretty complicated.
One time an asterisk came up to Trump, big asterisk, strong asterisk, tears streaming down its typeface and it said “Mr Trump, no president has ever been treated as poorly as you*”.
Lawsuits were filled against the buffoon and the pedo by the same individual, but ultimately they were dismissed or withdrawn. They were not settled, at least in no way that can be proven.
Now I’m not saying that the accusations were invented to negatively affect the buffoon’s election chances, though that is a possibility. I find it unlikely as most sane individuals, especially with what was known at that time, would not risk a crime or being counter sued by filing a false claim. Not to mention licensed lawyers putting their own careers and repairs on the line.
We also know that the buffoon and his enablers and followers are not afraid to break the law or push its limits to make problems go away.
I have no evidence one way or the other. It looks like the California case was likely dismissed because what was being sued over occurred in New York. And the cases in New York were withdrawn, but why that occurred is unknown. There may have been a settlement out of court, but I can’t find anything to prove that.
We have plenty of evidence at this point to speculate on what may have happened. Could there have been a settlement? Yes. Could the complainant have been intimidated into dropping the case? Yes. Could the complainant ultimately decide that her own health, safety, and well-being was more important? Absolutely.
These were all civil fillings seeking damages because the statute for criminal liability has passed. Pursuing a case like this as an individual is going to put her whole life under a microscope, force her to publicly relive the abuse, and open her up to cross examination by the defense. I think it is incredibly likely she walked away.
Interesting. Is there a site that has all of his convictions and settlements listed? This would be great in reasoning why he shouldn’t run for office if you have a link to all that.
He’s demonstrably the actual biggest loser in history, and he just got more loser-y folks… If any of you are starting to have your memories fade, here’s a quick refresher to read this morning and then copy and send to your aunt karen in Missouri.
0 re-elections won
1 term president
2 times impeached
3 marriages
4 inch lifts in his shoes
5 kids, from 3 different mothers
6 bankruptcies
7 US Capitol police suing him for Jan 6 terrorist insurrection and murder of police
8 trillion + dollars added to the US debt in a single term
9 trump lawyers sanctioned by federal judge for lying in frivolous election fraud lawsuits and ordered to pay defendant’s legal fees
10 years that trump paid $0 in income taxes between 2000 and 2015. ($0 to cops, teachers, roads, prisons, disaster relief, etc)
11 trump associates charged with serious crimes over the past 5 years
12 million votes (the big lie) - trump claims he won the 2020 election by 12 million votes when in reality, he lost by about 7 million votes.
13 of August, 2021 - one of multiple days that trump was supposed to magically become president again according to Qanon and a crack addicted pillow salesman (the two most respected information sources in the gop)
14 year old girl in a youth choir that trump approached in 1992 to say, "Wow! Just think - in a couple years I’ll be dating you."
15 originally confirmed cases of COVID in the US trump said would soon be, “down to close to zero.” followed by, “like a miracle, it will disappear.” - over 1,000,000 Americans have since died of COVID as it continues to kill years later.
16 years old - age of daughter ivanka when she hosted “miss teen” pageant and, according to long time trump associate Noel Casler, "trump called her over in the middle of a rehearsal and had her give him a lap dance while he leered at the crew."
17 known trump and russia investigations from local, state and federal prosecutors
18 gop senators that ignored trump threats / warnings and supported Biden admin’s infrastructure bill.
19 as in COVID19 - trump was verified as the single largest source of disinformation on the virus, with a Cornell study claiming that 38% of the “misinformation conversation” originated with trump
20 the day in January, 2021, when Biden was sworn in despite trump inciting a violent insurrection to stop election verification at the US Capitol.
21 gun salute that trump ordered for himself when he left office after a humiliating defeat, even though he never served in the military, famously called military members “losers” and “suckers” and actively avoided the draft with a cowardly “bone spurs” excuse.
22 date in August, 2021, when Alabama hate rally crowd booed trump for finally saying people should get vaccinated, only after 700,000 Americans have died due mostly to his failure as president
23 as in wrestlemania 23 in 2007 where trump, a cartoon level failure with no other prospects, participated in a fake bet that a proxy wrestler would win a fake fight on his behalf or he would shave his wig and hair plugs off.
24 day in August, 2021, when trump actually filed a lawsuit in Florida court against YouTube, a private company, demanding that they reinstate his YouTube channel like a desperate, irrelevant embarrassment with no platforms left to abuse.
25 plus credible sexual assault allegations against trump, spanning decades and with accusers starting as young as 13 years old at time of assault.
That list feels like a classic Reddit comment, packed with smugness. No one is going to convince their “aunt Karen in Missouri” that Trump is bad using a Facebook-tier list like that.
To answer your question, PoppinKREAM on Reddit often posted detailed comments with sources. Sort by “Top” on his Reddit profile and his fifth comment (as of today) has a much better list.
Yeah, I was hoping this place would be a little more accurate in discussion. But it’s still the same circlejerk. “Orange man bad” gets all the upvotes, regardless if the comment is true or not.
lemmy.world is a big instance and a lot of the Redditors from the initial migration landed here. But the great thing about Lemmy & the Fediverse is that you don’t have to stick with only one instance. I personally have accounts on lemmy.ml (where I landed after the migration) and beehaw.org (I joined in the early days and fell in love with their community & philosophies). I usually just browse “All” through the Voyager app though, so I can see posts from instances across Lemmy.
Using Lemmy / the Fediverse requires a different mindset than Reddit and other monolith websites: you’re given a lot more power to choose how to engage with the community at large and the Reddit hive mind isn’t nearly as effective. There’s still going to be circlejerks and brigades and all kinds of shenanigans that come with forums, but don’t take the voting system too seriously and you’ll have a much better time.
First, I’m not your friend. It would be embarrassing to even be mistakenly associated with you. Second, the things wrong with the list are most of your points are just your opinion or things that have no proof or weight. But it is telling that in order to come up with a sizable list, you eat the need to include superfluous bullshit points. I mean, you really find the number of women he’s had kids with troublesome? Or that he has inserts in his shoes. Nevermind the flat out lies in your list. For instance, can you name the multiple officers that were murdered on Jan 6?
With who? The deplorables that live for hate that we’ll never persuade? Or us, who have earned a chuckle and his expense?
There is nobody on the fence reading this list. If they are, the jabs aren’t going to be the deal breaker.
But this is moot. There are no actual independents. Just self aware ashamed in denial Republicans.
The only work is activating Democrat voters and convincing the left of us that Israel’s regime sucks but not having democracy in America doesn’t help any situation.
I really hate the “us vs them” bullshit, but it’s real. I don’t like many of the Democrat policies and am on the progressive side. They suck. But the other side is literal child raping treason Nazis. The fact that I’m saying that with no hyperbole in 2024 is so fucking wild. I wanted the star Trek future with a merit based economy and green alien babes… Not this bullshit.
While there are policies I can get behind, I am in no way considered liberal, progressive or whatever other terms are used. So do you think I am a “literal child raping treasonous Nazi”? If your answer is anything other than no, this is exactly why the country is in the shit and there will never be any actual progress.
At least you’re honest about completely dismissing those that don’t think like you. It’s interesting that you demonize a group you don’t agree with and then justify it with hyperbole.
“But whaddabout… whaddabout… whaddabout…” When Anthony Weiner got nailed, Dems dropped him faster than Giuliani dropped his pants for an underage reporter. Go ahead ask me - between Gaetz and Wiener, which one is still a congressman? If Trump gets caught up in the Epstein thing, republicans will circle the wagons and deny deny deny. If Bill Clinton gets caught up in it, Dems will demand he goes the fuck to jail. You know… because crime.
Then there’s the January 6th thing. That sort of explains itself. Donald Trump and republicans tried to use a violent insurrection and fraudulent electors to overthrow a constitutionally mandated process… so… you know… treason. You’re a traitor for supporting it. This one’s pretty simple.
Dude - I’m not just riffing. This is objectively true. These are facts. This isn’t a just a difference in ideology. If conservatives were actually conservative and not… you know… the rest of that stuff, I’d be down for it. You might not have raped any kids personally, but you sure as shit support people who do. Like… at this point, democrats kinda suck, but repubs are moustache twirling, cartoon evil. It’s not even close. The only way that you’re still a republican is that you’re living under a rock, or you’re a child raping traitor nazi. There’s no ambiguity anymore.
Child raping traitor nazi is fitting and objectively verifiable. Stop supporting kid fuckers.
No, if something is a little bit shit and some other thing is a lot of shit, that doesn’t make the little bit shit any good. It’s still shit. If you have ever voted for an incumbent you are responsible for the shit state we’re in. Because either they are in on it, or too incompetent to overcome it.
Wait, what? Instead of taking any ownership or introspection of your personal beliefs in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence that you’re supporting child raping traitor nazis, your response isn’t to reevaluate your support for them, it’s to deflect, double down on your support, “nuh uh, no you!”, and “both sides are bad”? You called me closed minded? Do you hear yourself?
There are trees out there working real hard to make the oxygen you’re wasting. As a great Canadian once said, “yer spare parts, bud”
Religion was at the center of everything 500 years ago. It’s gonna take credit for a lot of stuff because you could barely do anything art related without religious involvement.
I agree…except the Sagrada Familia which fills me with irrational anger. Looks like Poseidon walked on shore and squeezed out a sand turd. It’s so goddamn hideous to me. If I was the god who Gaudi built it for, he would not make it into heaven. I hate it so much.
All Eastern religions have their own problems and crimes committed in the name of their beliefs. Christianity might have some of the more global harms, but it’s hardly alone in being harmful.
That was perpetrated by Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar, whos actions are so fargone from traditional Buddhist teachings they can safely be considered not Buddhists IMO.
Ah like the Christian nationalists are so far gone they don’t represent Christianity right? Such a dismissive take against the reality of religions and their point to be a source of control over a population and society.
And no this isn’t a bashing of religion as a whole because I personally find the argument that religion is the root of all evil as childish. I have no issues with anyone believing anything they want. It only becomes a problem when you feel the need to impose your belief on others. EVERY group including religion, race, class, ethnicity, sex, political party, etc is guilty of that
The non-Abrahamic religions stick with thr peace and love parts in the US because they are not the dominant religion. Any religion ends up being cooped into being used to justify violence when it is on top even when the core tenets are supposed to be peaceful and accepting.
This also tends to be true of most human organizational structures, but religion adds a layer that make it easier for members to accept extreme behavior by the people in their group.
Moralists with authoritarian leanings are the problem.
Plenty of those around nowadays who, instead of a religions, latch on to some well meaning cause and then proceed to try and shove other people around under the cover of said cause, bringing along the more tribalist (hence unthinking and easilly manipulated with the right words) members of the cause, all the way to pretty much pogroms and purges (though, fortunatelly, not normally involving killing people).
Whilst the vehicle (religion, some ideologies, politics, any “cause” supposedly beyond questioning including nationalism), being something that most people follow in a mindless way is ideal for such subvertion and abuse as an easy source of supporting usefull idiots for people indulging their lust for power over others) the reall problem is, IMHO, a certain type of individual who will seek social situations they can abuse to be powerful (all the way down to the school social bully who uses connection rather than physicallity to have power over others), so it’s really such people we should be weary of and alert for rather than their chosen vehicles.
Yeah absolutely, and the problem is they’ll always find an excuse - someone on here recently argued to me that since we punch Nazis we should also punch people who use words like ‘unalive’ because it’s an attack on our culture - he was being entirely serious too.
You can see people rubbing their hands in glee at every climate change story too and it’s scary, I’ve been involved with a lot of green groups and eco-positive movements which are full of wonderful people who really care about making a better world - then there are overly online lunatics who never lifted a finger to help native species or anything like that but have decided it’s a wonderful excuse to live out their most destructive and hateful fantasies.
Religion is a way of harnessing that awful impulse in people and using it for the benefit of a small theocratic aristocracy, it’s a way of saying ‘you can get away with being the awfull person you want to be if you do it in the name of our gang and to our enemies’
People will fetishize anything and use anything to justify violence.
Buddhist practitioners can be as dogmatic as Christians, but having been brought up as one and studied the other extensively, Buddhism is not a religion in the Western sense of the word.
In fact there’s many teachings on avoiding dogmatic views in both ancient and modern Buddhism. Because dogmatism brings about the exact suffering we’re talking about.
Yes, Buddhists are as failable as anyone else. But the heart of the dharma begins with right view, which essentially means, don’t be dogmatic!
Which is the exact opposite of how I was brought up in a Christian family.
Buddhism is not a religion in the Western sense of the word.
Every religion claims that. Christians will tell you it is a lifestyle and a relationship. Jews will tell you it is a religion and culture. Buddhists will claim to be a philosophy and a mindset. No one wants to admit that they are just another way of doing X.
Cool we are just going to ignore all the Buddhists gods, like the seven headed snake (commonly depicted as the Buddha of Wednesday afternoon) and Maru. As well as the gods they borrowed along the way like Genash and about a million dead monks. We are also going to ignore all the passages in the Pali where the Siddathrata talks about his past incarnations and how he decided to decided to come to earth one more time to save humanity.
Hey remind me again, in the heart sutra what is the reason Siddathrata gives for the importance of giving gold to monks? I forget. Maybe I forget because he refers to it as a secret mystery.
Go ahead and continue. I want you to tell me more about what half remembered YouTube video from a fourlong secular Buddhist you saw once. I am just going to sit here and sort thru the hundreds of photos I have of me in South East Asia.
I’m only replying to your top paragraph because I sense a lot of hostility in your post and don’t have the patience at the moment to wade through it carefully.
Buddhism doesn’t extinguish other beliefs when it interacts with them. Nagas (the seven headed snake, who is not a God but more like a spirit, is a naga) already existed in southeast Asia prior to Buddhism. Likewise Genesh is a Hindu diety that already existed in India.
Some Zen Buddhist traditions even go so far as to draw parallels with Christian beliefs in the Kingdom of God and the ultimate dimension (a Buddhist concept for how everything is connected and interdependent).
Finally, I didn’t argue that Buddhism doesn’t incorporate the idea of spiritual beings (Gods, Demons, they can all be found in most Buddhist traditions). But they’re not beings to worship or revere simply on account of their spiritual status. Or to listen too without question like in authoritarian belief systems. So, it’s likely your post is a straw man but also possible you misunderstood my position and I didn’t communicate clearly enough. Either way, what you’re arguing against wasn’t my position. (See italics right above and below if you need clarification).
The Buddha said don’t take my word. See for yourself. And Buddhism is being incorporated under other names in all sorts of modern psychology practices. Because the shit works and is based on science (investigation of mental phenomenon with an open and unbiased mind) not dogma.
I hope someday you understand the difference. But I can tell by your tone that nothing I can say today will change your mind.
So this post isn’t for you. But the silent witnesses on the fence.
You are picking and choosing. You choose the few verses where Siddharth told you to verify what he said but you are ignoring the other parts where he instructed a brain breaking meditation practice that if followed would make you believe you grasp it. Nothing new or original. It is basic cult programming. For a man who supposedly demanded that people check his work not a single one of his followers has bothered to critique it in 25 centuries. Or if they did they were buried in a shallow grave somewhere.
Every religion does this. Enough chanting, singing, group activities, repetitions, shaming of heretical thought and eventually you will believe that you have the key to the universe and lo it is exactly the doctrine you were taught! What are the odds that the perfect way to exist just happens to be the way you happened to study?
The greatest extreme is of course in Zen strain. Concentration for endless hours on a paradox, not at all like meditation on the Trinity, right?
Way to deflect btw. As if I don’t know what Samsura is. Noticed you didn’t answer my question about the Heart Sutra. We both know why.
Basically you can’t accept that there really is not much of a difference between the two religions. The Buddha was never just a man, he was a cosmic being that came to earth according to the stories. You are following India’s Jesus. Just the Pali itself is twice the length of the KJV Bible and of all those hundreds of pages you pick out a few choice sentences making this celestial being sound a bit sciencey. You ignore all the stuff he got wrong, like his cosmology and geography, and expert shop to find the stuff he got right. You completely brush away the religion itself is practiced and I am firmly convinced that if you went to say Cambodia you would try to correct a monk with an “umm actually”.
Buddhism has a talent for conversion by syncretism. Tibetian Buddhism is Buddhism meeting Tibetian Shamanism, Chan/Zen is Buddhism meeting Taoism (which already was very close), both Therevada and Mayayana are rather more Hindu, and what we’re seeing in the west is Humanist/Christian, depending on the practitioner. A good dividing line might be belief in reincarnation: Legit Atheists don’t care, hell-conditioned folks find relief, whereas originally the whole thing was Hindu and Buddhism calls it dhukka (suffering, also mind that it’s tied into the caste system) and promises a way to break out of it. So what was a jail in one context serves as a comfy blanket in another.
In that sense it’s very much a mistake to see Buddhism as a uniform whole, or western adoption as appropriation or fetish, or really infer terribly much about one strain of Buddhism from the other.
Then, second note: All those eastern things should be compared, if you want to compare them properly, not to western religion or churches but to that and the whole philosophical heritage dating back to at least Socrates. And gods know in that context we don’t need religion to fuck up, we’re still recovering from Descartes and like to ignore inconvenient truths such that Newton was an Alchemist. Christians like to ignore that all the stuff that is actually valuable about Christianity, is more than memes furnished to propagate the system (and doing damage while doing so), is lifted from the Stoics. Racism once was “scientific”. I could go on and on.
Buddhist sects as a whole are not exception, but I couldn’t find an example of violence at “its inception”. All the examples I could find are from much later.
And that’s a big part of why, despite everything Biden is doing, I am 100% voting for him. Because if Biden wins, there will be a 2028 election where we can hopefully find someone better, and I’m not convinced that there will be under Trump.
Four years of Trump came really close to turning this country into a kakistocratic dictatorship. I really don’t want to give him another chance.
Why not educate someone who is earnestly asking? There is so much information and misinformation, just typing “Biden Israel” into Google and expecting full context is hopeless.
Guys, I think this guy works in News /s. He’s being sensationalist, isn’t actually answering any questions anyone is asking, is focusing on the bad, and is seemingly reaaally determined to get a rise out of someone.
That’s a very true thing. The problem with search engines anymore. There’s so much money in propaganda and misinformation. Getting on and finding real information as opposed to false information can be a daunting task.
You fully misunderstood my stance. The person I responded to said “despite everything Biden is doing” as if he’s created other controversy. I was asking what that controversy is.
Not surprised. Republican voters won’t care, Centrists will lay the blame on Biden and Democratic voters who don’t see the full story get discouraged to vote for him.
The president doesn’t get to unilaterally declare law, he at best has the veto but his job is to forfill the will of the people and by extension Congress.
If congress orders the money and guns to Israel, he cannot stop them.
there will be a 2028 election where we can hopefully find someone better
I’ve literally had people utter this to me before every single presidential election that I’ve voted in and it’s never come true. Neither party has any incentive to improve things when they’re guaranteed to get votes because “the other guys are boogeymen!”
So when Trump pulls another January 6, but succeeds this time and declares himself president for life, do you think that will make the situation better or worse?
My concern is that he will run again and again until he dies. Ideally if he won this year he could never run again. Obviously he’s a fascist so he will probably try to stay in (again) but man I am not looking forward to the next 20-50 years of him. And I’m guessing he’s going to live forever at this point.
Trump has visibly diminished in the last 4 years, as has his influence. Now he seems like the tail the dog is wagging but before he called himself the dog. I just don’t see him lasting that long
For a half second I thought you were calling trump the clay rock superhero from the fantastic four.
I may have only thought it for a half second, but I’m still already making popcorn. Because of how entertaining it would be to watch you explain how trump is The Thing.
I hope you have your popcorn! I outsourced the explanation though.
Imagine Donald Trump as The Thing from the Fantastic Four: an oversized, lumbering figure with an unmistakable, gaudy orange, rock-like exterior. His presence is hard to ignore, not just because of his sheer size and brashness but because he bulldozes through political and social norms with little finesse, much like The Thing smashing through walls.
In this form, Trump’s bluntness and tendency to overpower conversations mirror The Thing’s raw physicality. His speeches are repetitive and simplistic, hammering his points home in a manner akin to The Thing’s catchphrase, “It’s clobberin’ time!”—straightforward and unsubtle.
However, just as The Thing struggles with his monstrous appearance, Trump’s public persona is marked by a mix of bravado and thin-skinned sensitivity. His abrasive approach often alienates allies and emboldens critics, making his interactions as rocky as his hypothetical exterior. Both figures are defined by their confrontational nature, but where The Thing’s battles are physical, Trump’s are rhetorical and often divisive.
That’d be quite the feat considering we have the Constitution and Congress. How do you suppose he’d succeed at this considering Trump and Co were basically laughed out of every courtroom when they brought their election fraud cases to court? He doesn’t need to be president for another Jan 6 to happen. He just needs a microphone and a big crowd of pissed off smooth-brains.
If paramilitary groups are how he seizes control of the government, then it doesn’t really matter whether he was elected or not because you’re talking about outright treason and a civil war, neither of which are predicated on him being elected to office first.
How can you say “who needs courts” when the courts already shot his election fraud nonsense down in every single case they tried to bring? The trial for J6 has barely begun so how can you claim the outcome already? He was already convicted in the NY civil fraud trial.
Maybe you should ask yourself why the guy who’s running against him can’t even be bothered to shape himself up when, as you claim, we’re on the verge of far-right paramilitary groups staging a coup if he doesn’t win? How shitty at your job do you have to be that you can’t even win against that?
You’re preaching to the choir here. Biden is shit. But, again, at least I know he’ll go away in 4 years. Trump is going to try his damnedest not to. He already fucking tried once. And frankly, the fact that it’s been four years and he’s free to try again is proof enough the courts aren’t doing enough to stop him. There’s a reason they’ve been pushing all this stuff until after election.
Open your eyes and stop pretending Trump is normal. In nearly 250 years that this country has existed, nobody has tried to pull the shit he’s tried to pull, and he will try it again.
There are generally better things happening under democratic rule than republican rule. I get that it can feel small to those of us who want more radical change but there is a difference.
But I agree. Radical change is probably not happening from within the current system. Direct action and external pressure will be needed. But there is still a difference in how tolerant the two parties (and also between intra-party factions) will be of such a movement.
Trump can’t be both “different from everyone else” and “everyone’s worries about the guy are unfounded, he’s just another politician.”
While I know you didn’t say he’s the same, per se, you might as well by comparing alarms that Obama or Romney are going to be forever presidents to the guy literally “joking” about being a forever president that’s taken possibly criminal steps to subvert the results of an election already.
It’s not just the fringe paranoid folks saying “this could be the end of democracy as we know it if Trump wins.”
If Biden wins, then in 2028 he won’t be able to run again, and Trump won’t physically be able to. I’m reasonably confident there will be two “new” choices.
I’m very happy DeSantis seems to have crashed and burned, Christie had his last hurrah, and no one took Ramiswami seriously, but even Sanders’ age is a passing of the torch.
So, will you support Harris, Newsom, or AOC to go up against Abbot?
I’d support AOC but Newsom or Harris are more “status quo” Dems so they’ll probably get all the backing from the party in order to prevent a progressive from getting the nomination once again.
Why on earth would you think democrats would allow for someone better in 2028? Biden’s win will prove that they can continue propping up fascist extremists and you’ll vote for fascist lite.
You’re not describing a strategy, you’re describing a slow death.
I’ll take the lack of an argument as a confirmation that you understand what I said is true. Anyone who’s been alive for more than a single election has witnessed it, it’s pretty undeniable.
Even so, still better than a perpetual Trump dictatorship.
If Trump wins, he will, without a doubt, try again to end American democracy. He did before. And whatever you think of our current situation, at least we have a fucking voice right now.
It’s likely not better though, as the longer we let Dmeocrats play dick-grab with the GOP without actually fighting back tooth and nail (like politician’s like Biden are unwilling to do) the more the GOP is able to use their power in a way that’s concealed.
The reason RvW had a political effect is because it was shocking and too sudden. What will happen if we keep voting the lesser of two evils is people will get more and more acclimated to having their rights stripped away in small ways, rather than witnessing the horror in a way that’s easy to understand.
Even now, in this discussion, it’s difficult for you to see the pattern that’s occurring from the strategy you’re proposing of fear-based voting.
It’s uncertain whether a Trump term will allow for the GOP to enact their fascist take-over in full, but continuing to vote for the same milque-toast democrats is 100% a recipe for fascism because they will never reform on their own, and the general public will accept fascism if it comes slowly. I’m not going to try to tell you how to vote, but just own the consequences when they come and don’t try to blame others.
You seem to still be thinking in terms of Trump doing a term and going away. He won’t. He proved that on 1/6/2021, and his little jokes and musings now only reinforce it.
I have every expectation that, if Trump manages to become President again, he is not leaving that office until he dies. He will undo American democracy to keep his power. He already tried before.
Biden sucks. Democrats suck. You won’t catch me arguing with you there. But Trump is the death of the Republic.
And what chance do you think the Democrats are going to have to reform after Donald Trump undoes the entire democratic process and proclaims himself president for life?
He’s not going to go away quietly. We know this. He proved it on 1/6, and he’s outright saying it out loud again now. Stop pretending he’s just another politician. He’s a wannabe despot, and we need to not give him another chance to become an actual one.
Look, Biden is garbage. The Democrats are garbage. But at least they’re garbage that play by the fucking rules. If Trump wins, I honestly do not believe we are going to get another chance at this.
And what chance do you think the Democrats are going to have to reform after Donald Trump undoes the entire democratic process and proclaims himself president for life?
There’s no guaruntee he will actually be able to achieve this, it’s actually unlikely. The president is not a king, Project 2025 or not, they aren’t realistically going to be able to keep him in office longer than his term.
The only way out of this is getting fighters in office and the only way of doing that is making milque-toast “bipartisan” politicians politically unviable. And it is a long shot, but continuing support of the democratic establishment that has produced failure after failure simply will not work, no matter how long people do it. It won’t give us any opening
Neoliberalism has brought us to this point. It needs to be cast to the side as quickly as possible, not allowed to continue dragging the Democratic party down.
Look at it this way; Biden is willing to play chicken with our democracy himself, so what does that tell you he and the DNC think the actual immediate threat level is here? They seem pretty confident that it’s no big deal that Biden is neck and neck with Trump. That should be comforting to Biden supporters.
And what chance do you think Democrats are going to reform if you reward them for continuing to sprint rightward and enacting all the fascist policies NOW that you keep claiming you’re the only defense from?
Moving the goalposts any time a third party even comes close to the requirements for inclusion? Check
Having it legally ruled that voters and donors have no say in the DNC’s picks? Check
Pushing legislation to remove the red tape from stripping leftist orgs of nonprofit status? Check
Pushing legislation to make ANY criticism of Israel legally antisemetic so any school that allows protests can be stripped of funding and accreditation? Check
But at least they’re garbage that play by the rules
… yes, but do so to further the same fascist agendas.
Hard agree. I’m tired of people saying the only way to avoid fascism is the guy who
sidestepped congress multiple times to fund/supply genocide,
is pushing legislation to strip leftist orgs of nonprofit status,
pushing legislation to make ANY criticism of Israel legally antisemitic so they can strip any college that allows protests of funding and accreditation
coming from a party that at the slightest whiff of a challenge had it legally ruled that they do what they want, voters and donors be damned
also a party equally complicit in moving the goalposts any time a third party comes close to meeting requirements for inclusion.
America has always been fascist, ruled by a singular corporate party with two wings. The quiet part is out loud now and even prominent democrats and pundits can’t help themselves but break out all the fascist stops on leftists.
When democrats and liberals say “we have to stop fascism” they mean “we have to protect my status quo and the fascism that benefits me.”
It most comes down to maintaining comfort. Liberals have no issue with groups being harmed by state violence from police and other groups when they aren’t the targets. Dems had 4 years to prepare and look forward to what is coming, and the best we have is Joe Biden standing between the status quo and Trump’s full-blown fascism.
They like to ignore that dems have had a few opportunities with the trifecta to actually codify these issues and enact stronger policies against the threats we face now (that were apparent at the time) but the problem is democrats don’t WANT to lock those basic rights issues down because they need the existential threat. Their only platform for like 20 years now has been “not those guys” so if they actually codified (for example) abortion or even better added it to an amendment - They wouldn’t be able to push this narrative that if you don’t vote for milquetoast mid right Biden then you’re actually WORSE than the fascists and you hate women and you’re handing their freedom to “”“the right”“” on a silver platter.
America has always been a single corporate party system, and both wings of that party are pushing for fascism because it’s the end goal of any capitalist system. It’s just a fight between “marginalized folk are slowly and quietly suppressed so my life continues as normal” fascism or “quiet part out loud day one which I would have to acknowledge” fascism.
People say we can find someone better next time and still vote for yell for everyone to vote for every Neoliberal like Biden when they show up on the ballot. The lesser evil route is what got us here now.
“Where we are now” is nowhere near as bad as things could be. Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain all happened. Equally bad things could happen here, and in fact they have happened here. Remember how half this country’s economy was based on chattel slavery and it led to a bloody civil war? And how there was a genocide of the indigenous population? Is that what you want? Because that’s the kind of shit we’re in for if we let the fascists win.
Well, let’s legalize prostitution. Regulate it, tax it, legitimize it.
Conservatives: hell no, we can’t have that depravity and vice. We need to punish women for sex outside of marriage. Oh, yeah…and no abortions for them either. (Unless it’s my daughter or mistress)
If we are going to make it illegal, we really need to flip the laws and make it illegal to hire one. This would give those in the business a legal way of asking for help.
I see this sentiment a lot from the uneducated crowd, but unfortunately human trafficking seems to increase whenever sex work is legalized so I cannot condone it.
Human trafficking is there, anyway. The victims tend to be afraid, because they’re forced to do otherwise illegal things, and therefore don’t want to come forward. So what often happens under legalization is that a whole bunch of victims suddenly come out, which is now recorded as an increase in human trafficking.
So you’re saying it’s okay to torture and rape even more women and children because there were already women and children being raped and tortured anyways? I’m not seeing the logic, mate.
Studies show increases in the country where humans are sourced from, not explainable by “victims suddenly coming out”.
It might have encouraged you to notice that they are saying that the increase you are talking about is likely a statistical anomaly caused by the depressive effect sex work being illegal has on victims coming forward.
Put simply, sex work being illegal is beneficial to human traffickers because it keeps victims from seeking help. If you are a victim of a crime you’re more likely to come forward when you are not likely to get charged yourself for the trouble of being trafficked.
I’ve already explained that the victims coming forward does not account for the increase in human trafficking from countries where they’re being sourced from. Plus, it’s not just a 5% uptick, in many cases the number is several times or magnitudes higher than before legalization of prostitution.
What is happening is demand is being created far faster than domestic supply.
According to them, Human Trafficking more than doubled over the observed period. They also saw despite the higher number of victims the number of suspects decreased.
I think you need to do some reading, friend. Human trafficking is already a big problem. Legitimizing sex work and regulating it removes t some of the incentives to operate behind the scenes, just like legalizing pot, and frankly you get rid of the whole under-age thing because no government entity is going to allow that.
I wish it were true, but it’s really not. Human trafficking increases in both countries that legalize sex work and also countries where the humans are trafficked from. Tons of studies over many decades illustrate the cold hard truth.
Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.
The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.
The problem with these case studies are that they are small. If you don’t know what’s what and your pimp tells you it’s illegal and you can’t go to the police, you might believe them. If it’s widely and commonly known that it’s legal and that the police will actually help you, then that will change the results. That and if you throw the weight and resources of, oh let’s say, DEA marijuana enforcement against human trafficking, that will also change the results.
It makes my head hurt how ridiculous conservatives are and how they spin things. They’re only making their lives harder. Imagine the amount of tax revenue that could be collected from legalizing prostitution.
It’s obvious that they don’t because they only ever work one variable (spending) of the fucking equation:
spending - income = deficit
Even if you stop all of your spending entirely, you’ll remain in debt forever if you never have any income, so it’s a losing way to fix the problem, but that won’t stop them or their idiot voters from insisting upon it.
It’s not a homogenous group. You’ve absolutely got libertarians on one end, wanting to dissolve the state and legalize a market for children as sexual commodities on one end. And then you’ve got the Holy Rollers on the order end, who think coffee and cigarettes need to be next on the chopping block.
They formed an alliance of convenience to crush the labor movement. But now they are very awkward bedfellows.
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
I just don't understand the US and the 2nd. You're not allowed to have a lot of various weapons and it just states that people can be "armed", which could mean a lot of things. And even then, having a gun stored away safely is absolutely not infringing on that right either, as long as you have access to it. This is just obsessive gun fetishism and it constantly gets people killed, including little kids.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you’re allowed “bearable arms”, so essentially anything that can be carried, for self defense. And that requiring a weapon be kept locked up defeats the purpose of self defense.
Oregon has a law that requires guns be locked up, but dodges the self defense aspect by allowing an exception for guns under the direct control of the owner.
So if I’m home and in direct control of my guns, they don’t have to be secured. If I leave home or am not otherwise present, they do.
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
Could've at least quoted Heller's common use if you wanted to make a point (even though I'd still disagree heavily), because "bearable arms" is a completely ambiguous term without a clear definition that is simply applied willy nilly to justify their gun fetishism.
First, it is supersedes. Secondly, I don't see how Caetano is really replacing that ruling when it still uses the "bearable arms" mantra without being able to specify what "bearable arms" exactly are. Heller was at least able to say "all commonly used weapons today are bearable arms". It's still ridiculously stupid but at least it's some form of definition. So if Caetano goes over Heller, then the US went basically backwards and has no clear definition of what "bearable arms" fall under the 2nd. Make it make sense?
The people who will angrily defend 2a are perfectly happy watching children die if it means they get to keep their guns. They’ll give you all kinds of excuses, they’ll come up with all manner of justifications, but the truth is, they just like feeling powerful and are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for it.
Don’t forget the racism. The NRA’s perfectly fine with throwing away gun rights if it means making sure only white people are armed. For example, even as Harlon Carter was ramping up his crusade to turn the NRA from a sportsman’s organization into the gun lobby, the NRA still supported the Mulford Act, because at least that was taking guns away from those damn ni- I mean, “violent extremists”. They were dead silent when a legal, responsible gun owner like Philando Castile was killed. They never said anything when the textbook definition of a “good guy with a gun”, Emantic Bradford, was killed. And we all know damn well why.
The Harlon Carter school of gun rights comes with a major caveat present in many strains of conservatism: no restrictions as long as you’re part of the right group.
I will say this though, the issue is still pretty complicated, because basically both sides have some history of racism (gun control first started as ways to assuage fears of black uprisings, plus the aforementioned Mulford Act), but then, what part of American society isn’t in some way permeated by our racist history?
I dunno, it sounds like you understand it perfectly. A large contingent of the U.S. has decided guns are more important than children’s lives, and that’s why they have more rights.
Eh, if my in-laws hadn’t bought me a gun safe before my daughter was born, I probably would have given up my guns, because I wouldn’t want to spend the money on a safe, but I also wouldn’t want unsecured guns in the house… But I’m probably not the typical gun owner so what do I know.
They got your money. They don’t care where you store them. They don’t even care if they kill your daughter. They only oppose safe storage because they know the extra upfront cost will lose them sales.
This isn’t preventing him from getting a firearm this is charging somebody with improper storage of a firearm. Not sure how likely it is the supreme Court will rule against it but it’s different than the laws challenged so far
It isn’t. But the freedom to own guns without any sort of restriction is much more loudly, enthusiastically, and financially supported than the freedom to consume drugs in your own home.
And thus it won’t matter that the key thing is being irresponsible. Being irresponsible with guns and drugs in the home are completely different things in the Modern Republican mind.
Not to mention both major parties are anti-drug, no matter that conservative originalism would have long ago recognized that the founding fathers were all stoners, but both parties packed the court with their own flavors of authoritarians.
Well, that depends on what you mean. If you mean “it would still be possible for him to illegally acquire or make a firearm,” yes. In fact it looks like he was already a felon in possession (or prohibited possessor) before this incident, clearly this specific guy can get guns regardless of the law.
But if you mean “this does nothing in a legal sense to bar him from arms possession,” actually being indicted on a felony count will pop up on NICs if it has been entered properly, and if it isn’t input properly and he does a 4473, he now has another felony count for lying on the form. Once this conviction hits, it’ll be added to the list, so his prior felony convictions for drugs/firearms related stuff and his felony conviction for safe storage will flag in NICs, this guy will never legally be able to buy a gun again.
Like I said though, “legal” and “possible” are two very different things, just depends on what we mean.
The point I was addressing is that the supreme Court shouldn’t strike this law down as it doesn’t affect ownership of guns. If the guy’s a felon he probably should not have had a firearm but I can understand why he would want one.
Oh my mistake. Imo they may depending on the law if it significantly hinders (or can be argued that it does in court, anyway) home defense, but if the law is built in a way that allows people to have one out on body like Oregon’s (iirc) it’ll probably stand, only time can tell really.
But yeah he was a felon before these new felony charges it seems, wasn’t allowed to even have this gun lol, and won’t be allowed future ones.
I can understand why felons would want one too, and imo nonviolent felons should have a path back to their rights (both bullets and ballots), especially since that law is actually a tad racist. That said, this guy shouldn’t have them because of his criminal negligence.
They did leave some wiggle room which has allowed the law here in Washington to stick around. Basically if there is a reasonable possibility that a person who is not allowed to handle firearms would have access to them, you can apply restrictions. Guns here have to either be on your person or locked if there is a possibility that your kids could access them.
The language matters A LOT: Michigan’s mirrors California’s, which would absolutely hold up to any constitutional challenge because it requires negligence with an adverse outcome. Michigan’s and California’s basically say you’re a criminal if two things are met: you had any plausible expectation of a child being around, AND something bad actually happens.
Every states are a little different, and at the other end of the intelligence spectrum are New Jerseys and New Yorks, and nobody even cared to challenge those yet. New Jerseys statute says you’re a criminal, regardless of circumstances, if the guns are not locked up per some collection of criteria at all times when you’re not actively accessing them. I do know that most of New Jerseys rare prosecutions are actual bullshit, for example a cop going door to door to gun owners because of some local crime, asking to see someone’s gun to check it and not liking that the safe in the room he was in when they showed up was not completely locked (never mind he lives alone). Expect any challenge to arise there.
If SCOTUS does throw out all storage laws, it’ll be because of politicians who care more about their resume than about writing really good laws.
I’m sure there’s every kind of law being challenged, anyone with a conviction can challenge a law and any idiot city council can pass garbage statute. Don’t let political rhetoric cloud judgement (can’t say “common sense” because common sense actually ignores deep analysis). Magazine size ban is wildly different from California’s implementation of a safe storage law. Magazine bans are as constitutional as would be a law limiting the number of words you may post online in one go.
Sure they do. I can make whatever criticisms of the government that I want and they can’t prosecute me for it. Look how Russia and China handle online criticism.
In the context of the second amendment what do you think the word bear means? I’m not convinced that this law would violate what I think bear means. If it’s not on or near your person, I don’t mind it needing to be locked.
The word “bear” means whatever SCOTUS says it means. Much like “arms.” And “right.” And “infringed.” And “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the “nothing” it sounds like you’d vote for wouldn’t even punish the father! You’d rather have a kid die for nothing? Or would you rather we took the gun away? Are you saying that the only thing that actually works? Then we might agree on something.
“OK, my daughter loves Harriet Tubman. Tell me what you got!” she says. I explain our product, how we use historical women to teach girls about their worth and potential. The mother says: “But is it woke? I mean, I don’t want to teach my daughter about woke.”
And that's the really insidious part. The teacher is too ignorant of what she is ignorant of. If Harriet Tubman "might be too woke" then how would this women teach the nuance of protests? Of sit ins? Letters from a Birmingham jail? Much less modern protests. Her daughter is going to grow confidently saying things like
"I know all about black history, just not the woke stuff."
I went through California school a little under a decade ago and can tell you that the letters from Birmingham Jail and an at least somewhat decent overview of sit-ins were absolutely part of my standard curriculum
Though I’d bet there are plenty of places in this country where that’s not true
Grew up in Ohio. We touched on it. We definitely ignored the socialism and the condemnation of white moderates and the armed resistance (of that eta) aside from the black panthers who were portrayed with a mixed light much like Nat Turner was. But we were a Catholic school so we did condemn any violence.
I think the big thing is that it varies wildly. My area for example had a lot of focus on white resistance to chattel slavery, and acknowledgement of the reality of precolombian civilization. That’s not because we were woke but because those that was the local history of southern Ohio. We could go visit an Underground Railroad stop or one of the great mounds for a field trip.
Meanwhile in somewhere like Virginia, I would expect a lot more focus on the colonial period and early English settlement. And I think in somewhere like Birmingham or Memphis if they don’t focus on the civil rights era that’s on fucking purpose. And I assume texas is doing their own thing and pretending they didn’t secede from Mexico and the US over slavery.
Uhhhhh. Yes it is? My niece was going over all of that around 3rd grade. And that's about the same time I did, this was all in the PNW. I think your school district just had some major omissions.
Or she’ll learn on her own later. It’s sad, but many do it. The line of thinking of “we used to treat black people in utterly horrific ways” -> “we freed them but took a long time to give them the same rights” -> “they’re still mad and saying that racism still is a systemic problem” -> “why” is a path that many white Americans with intellectual curiosity have tread. Some don’t like the answers because they come with expectations, responsibility, guilt, and shame. Others decide that it doesn’t matter and accept what is learned.
It’s a shame she has to start there, but we have to believe that these indoctrinated children aren’t doomed
Yes it does. It means you don’t trust politicians or the system, you reexamine your beliefs and look at it critically.
If you don’t think there’s a fascist threat in our country right now, there’s people who are literally burning “woke” books and firing elected “woke” prosecutors. They’re using the word “woke” fairly correctly without understanding what it means, ironically enough, because “non-woke” is whatever lies the party spreads and “woke” is anything that contradicts that
Right, so give a vague definition then. Give a conditional definiton. Say “woke is when black people are treated like humans and stuff, you know, like when they say marital rape is bad”. They won’t though, because while that is exactly what it means, they also know they can’t say it out loud.
“Woke” is the thing that opposes their horrible and reprehensible ideas, and they know it. Hell, when DeSantis’ lawyer had to define it in court he went with “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” It’s weird though, why haven’t conservatives just grasped on to this definition? Because “woke” is a dogwhistle for “someone who isn’t a trash human like me”.
If you want to define “woman”, I can do way better than a vague definition though. Of course, the question itself is in bad faith, but I don’t give a shit. In terms of gender: “A woman is anyone who wants to call themselves a woman and wants to be called a woman by others.”
Just as an aside, I’m of the opinion gender is a stupid concept anyway and we should get rid of it entirely.
There are words that are notoriously difficult to define in such a way that every edge case is covered. For those words we use criteria. Listing off essential attributes and marking the entire list as provisionally sufficient. The Greeks figured this out 25 centuries ago, just a fyi. I know it is hard for conservatives to keep up with modern ideas but 2 and a half millennium should be enough time.
“What do you mean, ‘woke’?” I ask. She opens her mouth. Half-words and phrases stumble and tumble around. A few talking points from news sources fall out. Finally, she sighs. “I don’t know. Just tell me again what you write.”
Just because the politicians want to grab you out of your life and use you as cannon fodder doesn’t mean they want to actually be as accountable to you as they’re supposed to.
Automatic registration for Selective Services, not automatic draft. That’s very different. This is actually helpful in keeping people out of prison or getting fined for not registering.
But yes, this absolutely proves that they could automatically register people to vote with no designated party affiliation.
As a European I have always been confused when Americans talk about “voter registration”. The way it works in my country is you are legally required to register your residence with the government and that registration is automatically used to determine a voter registry (just filtering by age, citizenship and exclusion due to criminal convictions all of which is information already known to the government). I always just get a letter a few weeks before elections informing me where my polling place is.
Can exclude, not all of them do, I think it has to be a specific part of the sentence (ie not automatic) because some high court ruled that some years ago.
I meant not all criminal offenses necessarily cause an exclusion from voting rights. If I recall correctly there is a list of specific ones for which people can be sentenced to loss of voting rights.
German Law is very sane in regards to voting rights.
§ 13 of the German Federal Election Act (BWG) stipulates that only who is disenfranchised as a result of a judge’s decision is excluded from the right to vote.
This provision does not conflict with the general principle of equality in Article 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz - GG) and the principles of equality and universality of the vote, because the right to vote is not automatically revoked, but may only be revoked by a judge’s ruling if certain legal requirements are met.
However, this exclusion as a result of a German court ruling is only possible in a few cases expressly mentioned in the Criminal Code (StGB) and the Federal Constitutional Court Act (BVerfGG) and applies for a maximum of two to five years. Exclusion from the right to vote applies if a person has been sentenced to at least six months or at least one year in prison for the following offenses, for example:
Preparation of a war of aggression and high treason against the Federation
Treason and disclosure of state secrets
Attack against organs and representatives of foreign states
Obstruction of elections and falsification of election documents
Bribery of members of parliament
acts of sabotage of means of defense or intelligence service endangering security (in this case, a prison sentence of at least one year is required).
In these cases, the deprivation of the right to vote is at the discretion of the court in accordance with the special criminal law provisions and is not an automatic consequence of the conviction for these criminal offenses.
Furthermore, the right to vote can be revoked by the Federal Constitutional Court due to the violation of fundamental rights.
The disenfranchisement from voting is btw. also the foundation that makes one ineligible to be elected.
According to the Federal Election Act, anyone who has German citizenship and is of legal age on the day of the election is electable. This does not apply to those who:
have lost the right to vote and therefore their eligibility to be elected as a result of a court ruling or no longer have the capacity to hold public office
is permanently dependent on a statutory caregiver / guardian
or is in a psychiatric hospital due to a conviction
Well you see, in the United States, the way some politicians, specifically ones belonging to a certain very authoritarian political party manage to get elected is by making sure people don’t or can’t vote.
This is often coupled with throwing a huge hissy fit about “voter fraud” which doesn’t actually exist on any remotely meaningful level.
Well, voting fraud is a thing in Russia. Stuffing when one person throws multiple ballots at once, carousel when one persion votes one multiple stations, dead souls(reference to Gogol) where dead or absent people vote and Venedictov’s box - when Sobyanin repeatedly claims that electronic voting results will come immidiately when voting ends, but don’t long after all physical stations reported results.
Maybe, but I am more familiar Russian elections. Personal experience.
Also important note: election fraud != voting fraud. Voting fraud is just one type of election fraud. In Russia most widespread type of election fraud is not registering candidates.
Registering candidates in the US doesn’t matter, I could run for president or any other office and no one would reject my application to be on the ballot, unless I didn’t have enough signatures.
I would be surprised if you’ve ever heard of Vermin Supreme, or any of the other third party candidates for US president, much less the lower offices.
Yep. Same. You just go get stamp in passport once, then you just go to voting station with passport. That’s it. Oh, also by default(when you get passport) you get stamp that you live where you lived during filing.
I’m so fucking tired of seeing this quote constantly… but it’s inarguably a pervasive problem. I need this to stop being true so I don’t have to see it all the time.
There will just be another quote from RATM to take its place. Been listening to them a lot lately - there are so damn many relevant quotes in their music…
I feel the same way about “every accusation is a confession.” It’s such over simplified, sixth grade mean girl bullshit. Buuuuuuut it hasn’t been wrong lately, which is annoying lol.
Not specifically. But this assumes the chief is too dumb to know “There’s no place like 127.0.0.1” or understand that it’s the only IP address that means “it’s not somebody else, it’s someone here!”.
There really are people that dumb in Law Enforcement.
Here is the problem: These people very carefully choose their words. It’s not illegal to “wish” all the jurors are outed, tortured, maimed, and drawn and quartered over a bed of coals- along with their families, neighbors and first grade teachers.
See that’s all okay to say apparently. This is our legal system. It’s not until they actually say, “I’m going to […],” that LE gets involved. Because none of that other stuff was a direct threat, or intended to incite violence, or intended to instill fear. They were just harmless wishes. Super okay, and nothing to worry about, you see?
This is exactly what they’ve done. Notice everything (except for “make them miserable”, which isn’t inherently illegal…) is placed on “someone else should…”:
1,000,000 men (armed) need to […]
I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay […]
May God strike them dead.
They know exactly what they are doing. Doing it mafia style, just like dear leader.
Edit: Idiots downvoting what’s right in their face. Can’t believe facts, only emotions. Just like the idiots following Trump. Idiots are idiots. Here is more evidence for you, on this exact topic from reuters:
While the posts identified by Reuters all called for violence or insurrection, most fell short of the legal standard for a prosecutable threat, which typically requires evidence that the comment reflects a clear intent to act or instill fear, rather than simply suggesting a frightening outcome.
There are no “magic words” that make a threat legal. It’s always a question of context.
For example if Don Corleone came to your business and said “Nice place you got here, would be a shame if it burned down. By the way I happen to sell fire protection”, that would absolutely be illegal even though he never said he would do anything wrong. The intent is clear to all.
So it doesn’t really matter if someone says “I wish that guy was dead!” vs “I’m going to kill that guy!” Either one can be an illegal true threat, or not, depending on the context.
Well, would that be the same as someone coming on here saying “Nice federated place you got here, would be a shame if it went down. By the way, I happen to sell DDoS protection”?
We really need better enforcement of laws on threatening civil servants.
These jurors did a job that I might even struggle to take due to the likelihood of these assholes might fuck my life up. Imo, they should be given at least a year of Secret Service or US Marshall protection.
I personally don’t trust the local PD to protect them.
Conservatives make up over 90% of police in the U.S. Conservatism should be a diaqualifier for positions of authority. It is unsafe to give such dangerous people power over others.
Ok, that’s fine. We’d need more details about what actually transpired and what the support team told the cops.
But it sure seems like in a situation where the support team calls them, it should be with the understanding that they’re there for backup, not to barge in and fire.
But looking at the report, that’s what happened.
Also:
On May 2, 2024, at 10:58 a.m., Olympic Division uniformed officers responded to a radio call at an apartment in the 400 block of South Gramercy Place to assist the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH) who were attempting to place an individual, later identified as 40-year-old Yong Yang into custody.
Why was the Department of Mental Health “attempting to place him into custody”? They were trying to detain him and take him from the premises, under the law…which sounds an awful lot like an arrest with a different set of paperwork.
So basically these were just cops without guns…who went ahead and called the cops with the guns anyway.
I said it another comment but where was the emergency here? Why did they need to get him into custody immediately? He could not hurt anyone but themselves locked in an apartment alone. He was showing aggression when people tried to enter, but could not hurt them if they stayed out.
Why did they enter and give him someone to hurt? Seeing as how all that was going to do was give them justification to hurt him.
The police also tried to calm him down by whining about how “hard” their job is and tried to bitch about him “making a scene”. They really have zero empathy and probably aren’t even capable of understanding how the entire outcome was their fault. The definition of “why did you make me abuse you?”.
3: They said they’ll be doing it NOW or at a definitive time.
If these 3 things aren’t answered with any definitive answers, they’ll leave you alone.
You can say who you’ll kill, you can say how, but if you don’t say you plan to do it NOW or on May 23rd, you’re going to stay at home unless you have insurance and plan to go somewhere voluntarily.
=
Use this life hack to never have to deal with police and kill yourself if you want to as long as you’ve exhausted all real options. Pro-Choice all the way. Ain’t nobody but you gets a say on whether you want to live or not.
Set time? Set how? No person? No 51.15.
Don’t know when? Set how. Set kys. No 51.15
Say it’s tomorrow? Don’t know how. Say you’ll kys. Maybe 51.15, just don’t convince them differently.
E: Forgot the obvious. Don’t threaten anyone while you have a weapon in your possession. No, the police can no longer leave you alone. They are not allowed to just let you kill yourself without being sued into oblivion. Yes, if you threaten them with a weapon at close distance, they will kill you. No, it doesn’t matter if you’re mentally unwell, don’t threaten people with lethal weapons. Being unwell doesn’t give you carte blanche to PHYSICALLY threaten and/or hurt people.
Nah, the Trump base doesn’t give two shits about Israel/Palestine. And they’ll never know Biden ever tried. I’m pretty sure they’re still talking about the laptop
They want Donald in office because it is better for China. They don’t give a shit about Uyghur genocide or the fact that “socialist” China is producing billionaires.
They’ve moved on to his executive privilege move to withhold recordings, because there obviously must be something horribly incriminating involving vocal inflection that doesn’t translate to transcripts.
That’s how right wing news reports it. I didn’t mean to imply wrongdoing myself. I edited to remove the quotes. I’m in complete agreement of his decision. There’s absolutely no need for the recordings other than to truncate them and use them out of context.
They don’t like it when you point out that Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, tacitly declaring it to belong wholly to Israel. He’s made it very clear what he thinks about Palestine.
And you know 100% that if Biden was against Israel and supported Gaza, they’d bitch and complain and say Biden supports terrorists. Bad faith arguments across the board coming from those worthless shitstains.
“Look, I know Biden actively supports genocide. But if you point that out, then really it is you who is the bigger supporter of genocide. By not supporting Genocide Joe, you are actually a Trump voter.”
Give me a break. Maybe you’re the problem if your satisfied supporting a party who’s political leanings are so flexible that the only metric they cling to is remaining slightly to the left of the GOP, no matter how far to the right that keeps pushing them.
The Democrats are already a center right party. At this rate, when the GOP goes full National Socialist Workers Party, the Democrats will adopt the Tea Party’s politics.
But hey, at least they’ll still be to the left of the GOP, right?
But hey, at least they’ll still be to the left of the GOP, right?
Correct. They will be to the left of the outright fascists. And it’s that or the fascists. By voting for anyone else, you choose the fascists. Sorry, that’s reality.
No, the reality is that people like you are helping to craft that very future by refusing to stop supporting the Democrats for even a moment.
Even if stopping for that moment is what is needed to turn the party back into a workers party, and not one that is entirely beholden to it’s donor class, because they know the rubes will vote for them no matter what they do.
If you are not inclined to want fascist leaders, and assuming you are a person and not a troll, how do you imagine ceasing to support the less fascist party during an election year will result in less fascism?
We are only driving in one direction. The GOP keeps their pedal to the floor, while the Democrats have been happy just to ease up the gas a little - but not slam on the brakes.
You’re saying that it’s better to support the Democrats and delay the inevitable arrival at destination Facism.
I’m saying if ever want to hope to flip a bitch, or even just find an off-ramp, the Democratic party has to be retrained on who they respond to. The only way to do that is to make them more responsive to their voters, then to their donors.
When facing down the barrel of the unlimited donations and super PACS of their donor class, the only weapon we have is solidarity in not supporting them, until they learn.
Taking a little medicine now, but with the chance to actually turn this car around, is worth the risk when the other option is just delayed full tilt facism, with occasional letting off the gas for the new Tea Party Democrats, if they aren’t already outlawed by that point.
It’s happened multiple times in the past couple decades. Look at how the tea party took over the Republican party. There have also been the blue dog democrats and the Bernie social Dems. They haven’t taken over the way the tea party has, but they’ve both tugged at the direction of the party.
…and if they instead decide that the left cannot be depended on and start courting voters more to the right?
I honestly felt how you feel. I just don’t think it’s historically worked that way.
Push local reps to the left and Primary the centrists. I’m all for it… but going home because your guy isn’t on the ballot is playing a dangerous game right now.
If the country can handle a Republican win, then go back to staying home in protest. But I think, especially at this point in time, that a Trump win would spell the end of American democracy.
You realize that courting the right, and destroying the left, has been the current Democratic party establishments playbook for quite a while already…right?
That was actually part of the Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy. But don’t take my word for it, go read up on their well documented belief that they could give up on rural and bluecollar democrats, and replace them with “moderate GOP voters” from the suburbs.
Hint: it didn’t work.
So… you’re counterpoint is that if I don’t support them, they’ll just keep doing what they’re already doing?
I disagree. They’re behave like that because they can. Because despite their base despising their donor first agenda, the base still turns out for them, more or less.
The only way to correct that, is to retrain them on who’s needs they need to be responsive to. Absent becoming a billionaire who supports the 99%, the only way is to not support them, and be vocal about why.
So… you’re counterpoint is that if I don’t support them, they’ll just keep doing what they’re already doing?
Yes, that’s my point exactly.
The only way to correct that, is to retrain them on who’s needs they need to be responsive to. Absent becoming a billionaire who supports the 99%, the only way is to not support them, and be vocal about why.
Here is the painful truth that I realized back when I thought the way you do: They don’t give a flying fuck about us. We’re not numerous enough to sit out, be vocal, and hope they feel our absence. They didn’t in 2016. They didn’t in 2020. They won’t in 2024. We’re too fringe and too few. They just see us as fickle and hard to please extremists. We’d need to bring way more mainstream people with us to be heard. Hell, Gaza is actually getting some mainstream attention and Biden is still blocking UN action and sending Israel billions in weapons.
The average democrat voter is more than willing to guzzle the party’s liberal bullshit. Catering to “independents” and the disillusioned right pulls in more than enough votes to outweigh the left vocally sitting out. Have you watched any mainstream media?
We need to change the party from within. Be present and involved. Vote in primaries for leftists and support them. Run in the primaries if there aren’t leftists. The thing is that most voters want leftist policies once they understand how they’ll benefit from them.
In the meantime, there legitimately may not be an election in 2028 if this fucking psychopath wanna be mob boss gets another shot at a coup. It won’t fucking matter after that - making political change will take civil war.
You mean vote in the Presidential primary that the DNC cancelled this year?
Or did you mean, ignore that they cancelled it, and just vote for Biden like a good little lemming?
Don’t be so hysterical. Trump is bad, and I’m under no illusion what another term of his would be like, but he’s far too stupid and petty to “end democracy”, the Democrats are doing fine at doing that themselves.
I’m not some young radical. I’ve been through many cycles, and I’ve worked on more campaigns then most of people have voted in.
And yes, I’ve worked inside the DNC apparatus and been around contemporary Democratic machine politics nearly my entire life. I have a pretty good idea of what these people are like, because I’ve known a whole lot of them.
Well, considering that he lost then, and then lost again the same way 4 years later, he’s not really the benchmark of effective political strategy that you’re acting like he is.
Being a Bernie voter isn’t an insult and that was certainly not my intent, I voted for him too in the primaries. But being a Bernie voter/progressive and then completely ignoring his advice to vote for the actual Dem candidate (Hillary/Biden) becuase you have a super secret strategy that involves effectively not voting, is what I would describe as a gibberish strategy. Pretty sure he understands the stakes and strategies much better than you. The game I’m referring to is our highly imperfect first past the post system, and you’re not playing it.
The part I don’t understand is why you some folks feel their vote is so sacred that they can’t compromise for someone like Biden given the stakes. It’s just a vote, I give them out like candy to whoever is better. It’s super simple, it’s not a marriage vow and it doesn’t define you as a human. Real, actual harm will come to our allies with Trump and your thinking implies they’re an acceptable sacrifice. Women are literally dying because Trump appointed 3 dog shit SCOTUS justices. Bernie doesn’t agree with your strategy, AOC doesn’t, but you seem to think you know something special that progressive leadership doesn’t.
What super secret strategy? I’ve laid out my very simple belief on the matter, repeatedly, and on a public forum.
If my vote isn’t a big deal, than why are you devoting so much time trying to convince me otherwise?
I never said don’t vote. I’ve said I won’t support the establishment DNC, or Biden, but that I will continue to support progressive/left candidates who would be beholden to voters, and not special interests/machine politics.
Compromise to what end? That is what you’re not understanding. When in the last 30 years has that not lead to us being worse off?
I get it, you’re happy to manage our decline into a full blown neoliberal gilded age 2.0 hellscape, on the off chance that it helps to staves off full blown fascism. I’m not judging you for making that choice, but I do disagree with it.
I don’t see how the unending shifting of the Democratic party to the right, just to remain slightly to the left the GOP, doesn’t end up with the exact situation you’re trying to fend off.
So, as I said, I’m going to use the only voice I have, my vote, to support the only viable path that might prevent the outcome that you claim you’re trying to avoid, but really, are just easing into a bit more gently.
I’m not trying to convince you, I’m offering a counterpoint to the other 3 people that might read this and otherwise think your strategy goes without question. I just don’t understand how you can support a bunch of progressives that largely, if not exclusively, vote for Biden/Hillary as needed, seemingly agreeing with them in everything except this critical point where they make obviously correct choices to vote for least harm. Why wouldn’t you just listen to their reasoning? What makes you think you’re right on this?
The reason things get shittier is because shitty people like Bush and Trump get elected. The way to defeat them is to actually defeat them, not let them win and hope for a progressive uprising. I don’t see how moving backwards helps you move forwards, that’s all.
You mean vote in the Presidential primary that the DNC cancelled this year?
You are not arguing in good faith. I obviously mean every fucking Democratic primary in the country… Jesus fuck.
Or did you mean, ignore that they cancelled it, and just vote for Biden like a good little lemming?
I mean make sure it doesn’t fucking happen in the future. NOT voting is what the Democratic party expects the left to do. NOT voting is exactly what the right wants you to do. Hell, I’m half convinced that’s your goal to begin with. We live in fucked up times with misinformation and manipulation via social media is a powerful tool.
Don’t be so hysterical. Trump is bad, and I’m under no illusion what another term of his would be like, but he’s far too stupid and petty to “end democracy”, the Democrats are doing fine at doing that themselves.
…
he’s far too stupid and petty to “end democracy”
I’m sorry, do only smart and reasonable people have the ability to end democracy? The only reason he didn’t fucking steal the White House already is because he was to stupid and petty to do it right the first time and the old right wing powers thought he was making them look bad.
This time, they realized he’s barely suffered any consequences and they are going all in. He’s their shot. They’ll suck his dick and hand him a crown as long as it gets them in the door and keeps them in power. He’ll do what they want - appoint the judges, issue the executive orders, whatever - so long as he gets that crown and his pile of cash.
Even if Trump manages to peacefully transfer power after an election in 2028, the United States will no longer be a democracy. I’m honestly scared to death of what a less stupid, less petty right wing president could do with the structure the right has been using Trump to put in place. Too much damage will already have been done.
Put out the fire now, do whatever it takes to make sure the lesser of two evils wins, and fix the Democratic party from within. Hell, fix the voting system and go third party, I don’t care. Its not like I’m not sick of this shit too. I can’t fucking wait for a time when the D’s don’t have the trumppocalypse to scare voters into giving them a pass for their bullshit.
I’m not some young radical. I’ve been through many cycles, and I’ve worked on more campaigns then most of people have voted in.
And yes, I’ve worked inside the DNC apparatus and been around contemporary Democratic machine politics nearly my entire life. I have a pretty good idea of what these people are like, because I’ve known a whole lot of them.
Yes, they effectively rigged the Presidential primary this cycle for Biden. It wasn’t really a secret, was widely covered, and if you aren’t aware of that, I don’t think you’re informed enough to even have this conversation.
I genuinely don’t care if you believe me. It wasn’t an appeal to authority to get you to change your mind. It was in response to your patronizing “I used to be like you” schtick.
I never said don’t vote, not once. I haven’t even appealed to others to follow my lead in not supporting Biden.
I have laid out some of my reasons for not supporting Biden, and that is what you find so offensive.
“The lesser of two evils” game will never end. That is the fire, that is how we got Trump in the first place. Continuing to breath life into the existing DNC isn’t going to put it out, it’s just going to fan the flames.
I never said don’t vote, NOT ONCE. I haven’t even appealed to others to follow my lead in not supporting Biden.
So how does one vote in the presidential election and not, in some way, support Biden?
My whole fucking point is that not voting for Biden brings us one step closer to a country I doubt either of us would prefer to live in. I am vocal in my opposition to the choice we’re being given and in my criticism of a great many actions and inactions of the current administration but I’m still going to vote for Biden over Trump and over any third party candidate.
What, exactly, is your point? If not withholding your vote and yelling about it then how does one “not support” Biden?
I don’t know about your locality, but I’ve never lived in a state where a Presidential general election ballot doesn’t have a whole lot of other races and ballot initiatives on it…
I don’t see how my not supporting Biden, or the establishment DNC candidates, somehow prevents me from voting for school bonds, local progressive grassroots candidates, or any other measures and races on the ballot this year.
So…good for you, vote your conscience, and I’ll vote mine.
I see. So you are advocating to not vote for Biden. Your not explicitly telling people not to vote for Biden, your just telling them that doing so is actively making the country worse. Got it.
As opposed to you, and the others like you, who are demanding that anyone who voices dissent and discontent must still vote for Biden, and to do otherwise means we’re actually a combination of Trump supporting tankies who run socket puppet accounts for Russia, who really want the country to continue sliding towards fascim.
to do otherwise means we’re actually a combination of Trump supporting tankies who run socket puppet accounts for Russia, and actually want the country to continue sliding towards fascim.
Lol
So yeah, I understand your position just fine.
LOL. Fucking LOL.
One last reply and I’m done.
Yes, I doubt that you are some disgruntled DNC veteran. Yes, in this day and age I can’t be certain that you aren’t just part of some foreign or domestic social media effort to destroy morale and advocate for not voting. However, I only mentioned it offhand and have continued to treat you like an individual. You have not done the same.
I see you as misguided and angry. I see you as unaware of the consequences and ineffectiveness of the actions you advocate for. You never said anything to deny what a second Trump presidency would look like, besides the extremely simple assertion that he’s too stupid and petty. You act like it will be fine.
You ignore the damage he’s already done. Women all over the country are suffering, voting is being suppressed, minorities and LGBTQ+ folks are being denied their rights, environmental laws are getting gutted, and good federal agencies are being stripped of their power… because of the justices and judges that Trump appointed. You ignore all this and state you’re going to refuse to vote for establishment candidates in the general election. Why? Because, like a child, you are angry that your preferred candidate didn’t win the primary. So, to “send a message”, you’re willing to risk pushing our country another four years closer to a fascist theocracy…
Yeah, I’m going to hold my nose and vote with my conscience.
You’re technically correct, but only because the DNC drinks from the same neoliberal Kool Aid. The apparatus is now mostly run from their bloated privatized consultant class (campaign consultants, media firms, polling outfits, etc.).
Of which, I’m sorry to say, I have spent time both employed by personally, as well as many years in close proximity to, outside of my own direct professional engagement.
I love how, on Lemmy, you think that it’s more likely that I’m actually a deep cover foreign asset, then a citizen who’s happened to have worked in the disgustingly large multi-billion dollar campaign industry.
But please, tell me more about how your intimate knowledge of our body politic is more nuanced and insightful then mine.
You call me angry and disgruntled, but your political philosophy is “I’ll compromise on literally anything, as long as I’m told it’s for the greater good”.
Trump would be awful, but he’s not the end of the line of awful candidates and I’d rather take my chances with a DNC that is responsive to it’s base, and not it’s donors. That can’t happen unless they fear their base will pull support, which is why they’ve trained them to always compromise.
Isn’t it funny though, that the compromise only works in one direction: to the right and for the benefit of the donor class.
My responses were directed at people commenting, unprompted, about how anyone who doesn’t support Biden, or buy into his campaign messaging, are either closeted Trump supporters, tankies, or (my personal favorite) foreign socket puppet accounts i.e. Russian bots.
Because obviously they can’t be lifelong Democrats who are fed up with current Democratic establishment and see the threat they pose if left unchanged - precisely because we NEED an actual strong leftwing workers party to stand against the GOP.
So, again, you do whatever your conscience tells you.
If your comfortable with a Democratic party that is already fully run by neoliberals, crushes leftists, and only moves further to the right each election, then keep supporting them. That’s on you.
Myself, I am going to see which option the Democrats are MOST concerned with i.e. uncommitted vs blank vs a specific 3rd party candidate.
I will also continue to support most of my local and statewide progressive candidates, because I do care, and I’m not whatever fantasy the Biden supporters have concocted so they can dismiss people like me without giving these idea any real thought.
We don’t yet know if he actually did anything here or not, we will find out when the legal challenges are done. On one hand, it may survive, in which case something was actually accomplished, on the other hand, Biden may have wasted a whole bunch of people’s time and clogged up the courts even more than they already are.
WTF kind of logic is this? Are you saying he shouldn’t even try and just sit with his thumbs up his ass rather than try to accomplish good things because a court may block it? Should we all just throw our hands up and give up doing anything at all?
That’s a terrible argument. And love how you blame the obstructionism on the one being obstructed from accomplishing their goals.
So, no, we have already seen the action. He did something. Will the sociopathic fascist a-holes in government overturn the action ALREADY TAKEN is what remains to be seen.
First off, I totally agree the argument you responded to is bad and that Biden is driving toward the right goal.
However, if we disambiguate the specific circumstance here, there is sometimes an argument to be made that the one being obstructed is the problem. Think about how many obviously illegal laws Republicans have pushed through. A recent example would be DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE” act trying to eliminate DEI training in companies. It so clearly goes against federal law about protected classes and was deemed unconstitutional because of the first amendment. I don’t think there’s any chance DeSantis actually believed this act was legal or would be allowed, he just wanted the brownie points of “hurr durr, own the libs.”
There are so many cases of that kind of thing, and I think it’s absolutely fair to be critical of those whose laws are being obstructed when they initiate them in bad faith.
However, like I said, that doesn’t apply in this situation; this law was not made in bad faith, and the Texas court is definitely the problem here. I only bring it up because “blaming the obstructionism on the one being obstructed” can sometimes be a legit argument.
I’m more willing to give Biden credit when he’s blocked by trump appointed judges than I am when he’s blocked in the senate by members of the party he nominally heads.
The Legislative Branch does not report to the Executive Branch, it checks it. If the Senate reported to the President, they wouldn’t be doing their job. Trump’s presidency was a good example of corruption of governmental checks and balances.
I’m not happy with centrism. The term is progressive for a reason. If you abandon all progress short of the goal, you’re not progressing. That just leads to party division, disenfranchisement, and Republican regression. Liberal policies of today were the progressive legislation of the past.
I’m not happy with centrism. The term is progressive for a reason. If you abandon all progress short of the goal, you’re not progressing. That just leads to party division, disenfranchisement, and Republican regression.
Stop trying to redefine “progressive” to mean “slow walking progress.”
The government is slow, not the ideals. What you fail to understand is that liberal policies that you take for granted today were the progressive policies of the past. You’ll never reach the goal if you discredit and discard everything that comes up short.
Your willful ignorance to recognize that half the nation is in opposition of liberal and progressive ideals is what leads you to point the finger at those who understand that compromise is necessary when Democrats don’t have full control of the government.
If Democrats could successfully maintain presidential and congressional majority for an extended period, politicians would be forced to become more progressive to capture more of the vote. That requires unity, not division.
What you don’t understand is that liberal policies that you take for granted today were the progressive policies of the past.
I understand that progressives fought for them in the past and centrists didn’t, often fighting against them, just like today. Contentment does not produce progress. Which is why people who don’t want progress call discontent divisive.
What the successful progressives of the past understood, that you clearly don’t, is that the opposition to progressives and liberals is Republicans. They succeeded in passing progressive legislation through unity.
Find me a piece of successful legislation passed exclusively by progressive members of Congress. I’ll wait.
There are countless examples of it throughout our history. Why do you believe your opinion is more credible than repeatedly proven historical evidence?
There are plenty of examples of centrists fighting progress as well. Your demands that progressives shut up and be happy with deliberate failure and betrayal don’t change that.
I’m voting for Biden this time around, too. I voted for Clinton in '16. And I’m going to gripe about it the whole fucking time.
That doesn’t mean that centrists oppose Republicans harder than they oppose progressives, and it doesn’t mean they don’t work with Republicans to shut down progressive policy.
I want stories like this bombarded at the morons on here saying Biden does nothing
Biden putting up rules and then failing to enforce them because of a predictable Texas appeallate court issuing a predictable injunction amounts to nothing.
Biden had the opportunity to pack the courts back in 2021 and… didn’t. He still has the opportunity, right now, while he has a Senate majority.
This isn’t just a Biden problem. I could name a dozen of Senate Dems who paved the way for a stacked court, going back to the McCain-friendly Democrats caving to Frist’s Nuclear Option back in 2005 (senior senator from Delaware whatsisface notwithstanding).
But this is a kind of learned liberal helplessness, when a guy like Biden can throw you an empty headline and get “See! He tried to do something! We just need to give him 2009 supermajorities before they’ll work!” Meanwhile, if any Republican wins any branch of any level of government, that’s all they need to eviscerate democracy forever.
They just don’t recognize that they’ll be crushed first when it rolls back. Maturity is learning not to commit all of your attention to the top of the mountain, but to always be mindful of the boulder.
Even without “both sides”, the situation worldwide is fucked. And “neither side” is going to change much. Yes, one is worse, but the better side still offers a bandaid over a gushing wound.
We just need to help them understand the system better. I voted third-party when was young, and many of my friends abstained. That was due to a lack of education about our government. It’s not about swaying them to vote one way or the other, but just to help them understand how our system functions. After that, if they want to vote for Trump with conviction, so be it. At least it’ll be an informed decision.
Anyone who believes there are more than two choices in this election was poorly educated on American democracy. I know I was when I voted Green Party at 20 years old. If I can help educate those that are as ill-informed as I was, I feel it’s my duty. After that, the choice is theirs.
The whole point I’m trying to make is that the system doesn’t work, voting lesser of two evils never helped in any meaningful way.
We need to stop capitalism, or we will all die, or at the very least suffer greatly.
That’s the whole point.
I’m not from the US, so I can’t vote for either side anyway, but we are all fucked. I watch the children and feel sorry for letting them down. They will not grow up into a world of peace and prosperity, only desolation and dystopia.
So while yes, Orange man very bad, the system will kill us anyway. Fascism will take your country, but capitalism took our entire planet.
Yep. Just vote and don’t expect to get to the top. We’re never getting there. We just vote and vote and vote and then eventually we die, pushing the same boulder the entire time.
It’s far from ideal, but the problem is that we let it roll back every 4-8 years. If Democrats consistently won due to progressive policies, the candidates would inevitably become more progressive to capture more of the constituency. Disengagement and disenfranchisement consistently cause the boulder to fall, leading to the lack of overall progress.
Don’t underestimate the efficacy of voter disenfranchisement and disengagement. Republicans don’t need to prop up Trump. People who loath him will vote for him simply due to party loyalty. Discrediting Biden is all it takes for a win.
You’re right. It’s important to keep negative feelings to yourself. Cram them right down in the pit of your stomach and then smile and say “Yeah, this is exactly the sort of government I want and if you have a problem with it then you’re a bad person.”
You don’t need to play martyr. Get some help if you really want to address it. Trying to convince others to feel hopeless along with you won’t make you feel any better, and it can hurt others in the process.
Voting should be emotionless. It’s a civic responsibility to make a logical decision to benefit yourself and those you care about. Vote for whomever will do that more. Don’t expect perfect representation at that level of government.
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying this entire time: Vote, but don’t expect it to help.
The strategy of telling voters that they can vote for change is what’s caused Millennials and Gen Z to check out. Don’t tell people our government is responsive or effective, because it isn’t and then they’ll get the wrong idea about how government actually works. Don’t tell them they can vote for Hope & Change, because those aren’t things our government provides.
It’s like you’re stuck in the water with a riptide pushing you away from shore. A really strong swimmer would just swim against it, but you’re not, so you swim parallel to shore because then later you can swim back in. At least it’s not pushing you further out.
Nope.
Just decide to quit and drown. This is what the young “I’ll show you by not participating” crowd sounds like to me.
Well, yes. That’s the thing: If you give up, you drown, if you keep going parallel, you never know when the tide might turn. If you’re 24 (that’s how I interpret your previous comment), you’ve only had the option of voting in one presidential election so far. In that election, progressives completed the monumental task of voting out an incumbent proto-facist. And for all of Bidens flaws, there can’t be much doubt that a lot has been heading in the right direction. Of course, there’s still a huge task ahead, but the previous election shows that Trump can be kept out of office, and the past three years show that things can get better.
Step 1: Forgiving student loans, Step 2: Working to reform the system.
Step 1: Pardon certain drug-related crimes, Step 2: Work to reform drug laws.
Step 1: Massive infrastructure investments, Step 2: More investment in public goods
Step 1: EO’s to protect reproductive rights, Step 2: Legislation to do the same.
My point is this: Biden has shown that he is working to make progress, and that he can actually get stuff done. The problem is that there’s a whole lot that needs doing, much more than anyone can do in two terms. We need to keep getting the best option into office, and we need to spend the next four years to ensure that the best option next time is better than Biden is now. If Trump gets four years, I fear that we’ll have a near impossible job.
I’m actually 42. This is my sixth presidential election. I’m old enough to know this post is writing a check our government can’t cash. It’s too broken.
Calm your tits. I’ve been voting D like a good little neoliberal since 2000.
I don’t need to give them more power. They’ve already elected two presidents without the popular vote, hold most of the Senate because it gives land more power than people, and the House because we haven’t fixed representation in a century. Not to mention the fuckery in every single one of the states they can pull off.
The fact that Republicans are able to do that sort of shit is how it’s broken. They’re not the problem, they’re a symptom of people winning game with broken mechanics. Like the end of Monopoly when one asshole has all the money.
Because they’re not rolling it up fast enough! Can’t you see? They just have to roll it faster and preferably all the way and then I’ll get excited and help. Yup. Until then I’ll be adding ankle weights to you too. And don’t forget it’s all your fault too.
Chips act, green energy, union empowerment, student debt, marijuana reform, etc etc etc. Anyone that says Biden isn’t doing anything is wilfully ignorant.
You’re doing exactly what the parent comments described. All you’re doing is crying when the ball is rolled as much as it can be while you’re (likely) kneecapping him because he doesn’t have a majority in the house.
Couldn’t agree more. There’s a huge misunderstanding that the President is the most important facet of government, but the Executive has remarkably little ability to influence the law aside from directing the various agencies on how they should operate and utilizing the power of veto to check the legislative.
Trump won’t be a dictator on day one because that’s not how the office of President works. He will be, though, if Project 2025 is allowed to be implemented and they get rid of all the barriers to him having unilateral unchecked authority. This is also predicated on the possibility that he will not be held accountable by the courts and the Supreme Court rules that he can commit crimes and label them as “official acts”.
The big misunderstanding is that people think Trump alone can fulfill all of his campaign promises and Biden simply won’t, when the reality is that Biden can’t do it alone and neither can Trump (yet).
That’s fine. Go back to my OP, not organized enough, not supporting progressives enough. We don’t need a majority we need a super majority. You know, an impossible task.
Marijuana is still illegal federally. Schedule 3 is not legalization.
Forgiving student debt is not reform. A kid going to college today will still need to take on a ridiculous debt load and play the job/forgiveness lottery.
Biden very publicly told Unions where to stick it.
The green event stuff he funded is great but it’s not novel and he used it as a cover to protect the Big 3 Auto manufacturers from foreign EVs.
The CHIPs act is actually okay. 1 out of 5 things but being performative is good though right? That’s the standard?
You’re crying that it’s not legal yet. Let’s forget that he asked dea to look at rescheduling it and that he forgave federal possession convictions.
You’re crying he only did what he could and forgave debt and hasn’t gotten around to a Herculean overhaul of the entire post secondary system.
You didn’t see the follow-up with unions. I’d give the Beau of the fifth column video but they’re impossible to find.
You’re crying not novel enough, WTF. And you’re forgetting the green energy generation in the IRA.
You’re crying chips being only decent?
That was the easy stuff off the top of my head, and it’s just crying that nothing is ever good enough. Crying that it’s not fast enough. Nevermind that you’re (likely) kneecapping him with no majority in the house.
You’re exactly the character described in the top comments.
That was the DEA looking at it. It went from schedule 1 to schedule 3. Which is a year in prison and a fine for possession.
I’m not against him doing harm reduction, but call it what it is. Don’t forgive debt and sell it as a reform. Winning the presidential lottery is not a reform.
The follow up? Where railroad workers are still under manned and required to work sick? Oh I’m sorry we got some real reforms for the IT guys in railroading. But the guys on the tracks, who were getting abused before are still getting abused in the exact same ways.
Green energy generation is solved. It’s already cheaper to build, maintain, and use than fossil fuels. Many states already routinely hit 100% renewable energy on their grid. So much so that the business crowd is trying to get home solar financial benefits reduced because the market is saturated.
This isn’t “nothing is good enough” it’s stop doing merely performative shit and blowing smoke up my ass. I gave him credit for CHIPs, but the IRA was just a corporate grift wrapped in green paper.
Yes, that was the DEA being told by Biden to look at it. And you’re forgetting that he forgave federal possessions.
You’re back to crying about “only” forgiving some debt. And you’re back to crying about not doing a Herculean task of completely overhauling post secondary in 2 years. Who’s selling it as reform? Nobody. You’re making shit up just to cry about now.
The rail union got to negotiate. Whatever they got, they negotiate for themselves. You’re crying again that Biden didn’t do _______. It’s not even his place to negotiate or dictate what happens, but you’re crying about it.
Green energy generation still needed (needs?) a boot in the ass, which is exactly what IRA did. But you can’t cry about this one, so no credit to Biden! Oh wait there’s the crying about IRA. Seriously?
All you’re doing is crying about things not happening at warp speed. And then ignoring the things that do happen. You are exactly what the top comment are about.
What this comes down to: If you don’t vote, then you can’t complain or cry. Do you vote? Good. But I’ll say that your crying is largely inaccurate. Do you not vote? Then it’s bizarre and pathetic that you are crying while you are the one that is actively kneecapping progress.
Again. Hoping the president pardons you is not fucking reform.
And yeah we’ve known student debt was a problem for a decade. He knows he has four years in a term. Nobody wanting to reform things starts on January 20th. They start making plans years in advance or subscribe to think tank plans. Saying he’s only had his entire term is a bullshit excuse. That’s when shit gets done. He hasn’t got the job done. And that wouldn’t even be a big problem if he weren’t trying to tell people he did get the job done.
The rail union didn’t get to negotiate.b that was the entire reason they were going on strike. Biden forced them to take the company’s offer. That’s what breaking the strike does. At this point you’re straight up lying.
Oh so corporate grift wrapped in a green paper sounds like it’s not a complaint to you? He set EVs back 10 years.
I’m not complaining that things aren’t happening day enough. I’m complaining that you’re lying about what he’s done. I’m complaining that he lies about his accomplishments and then wonders why people don’t just fawn over him.
And you’re still crying that it’s not fast enough. Someone said it has to be reclassified first before either decriminalization or legalization (no idea if accurate). But you just want to cry that the boulder isn’t being pushed up the hill fast enough. And crying over what he could and did do. Not to mention that he can’t do it - Congress passes legislation, not the President. He did what he could which is tell DEA to look at it.
Still crying over not doing Herculean overhaul in TWO years. Because you need Congress. Congress is the one that could do massive reform, not the president. You don’t even know how your own government works and yet you want to cry. This is some serious “I’m 14 and don’t know how things work, but I’m going to cry about Biden bad” from you. That’s twice that you don’t even know how your government works.
Dude you can negotiate without a strike. This is more “14 and don’t know how things work”. Here I looked it up for you youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8 Also pay attention to how a rail strike would have ground the US economy to a halt. But don’t get the wrong idea, it was about Biden’s success pushing on the negotiations. You should watch him regularly. I’m very certain there’s another one with even more rail union wins but he often has shitty titles so I can’t find it. Don’t forget to cry though.
And more crying about green power generation. You want to set up a domestic industry, green power is not one and done. You can do way more when your country’s money feeds back into itself. For both generation and EVs. This is more 14 and have no idea how industry or long term industry works. But you just want to cry about not fast enough.
You dropped the chips stuff too.
I thought this before, but your reply here showed it full tilt. You have some serious “I’m 14 and don’t know how anything works” vibes. You are the epitome of what was said at the start:
Good news! Apparently a lot of excitingly new young progressives are mad we haven’t rolled it back up high enough and are refusing to help!
Wait. Okay, not good news. Sorry.
And
Because they’re not rolling it up fast enough! Can’t you see? They just have to roll it faster and preferably all the way and then I’ll get excited and help. Yup. Until then I’ll be adding ankle weights to you too. And don’t forget it’s all your fault too.
I notice you didn’t respond about voting either.
No matter what I say you’ll cry about something when you don’t even know how things work, so Ciao.
Right. We’re done here. I’m not the person you think you’re arguing with. It is a very simple idea. Stop lying about progress made. Have fun with your straw man. I think anyone reading this can see the lies about what’s been accomplished.
So you didn’t read anything huh? Or did you get too embarrassed at your own mistakes and how they bordered on lies? Why am I bothering with someone that denies reality. Ciao. (But if I find more rail wins from Biden I’ll let you know.)
OMG you caught me! I’ve been lying the entire time! Presidential pardons are totally reform. Schedule 3 substances don’t give you a record and a year in prison. The rail road workers aren’t still working under the points system, without key personnel, don’t have to schedule their sick days a month in advance, and definitely don’t have to worry about having those sick days cancelled on the day and being punished under the points system for that. The IRA was totally not actually a political grift to donors wrapped in green-wash.
You guys must be stamped in the same propaganda factory, “Quick, do a projection! Then people won’t know who’s telling the truth!”
The federal possession forgiveness was a red herring. It only applies to people in federal prison who aren’t also in for “violent” offenses, which all the aggravated and intent charges count as.
And yes federal because that’s what he has jurisdiction over. And yes violent offences are a big and completely different step up. It was intended to be possession and that what it was, not other things. You’re doing a weird deflection on what was a good call. And plenty of advisors probably pointed out that many times some decently bad incidents get argued down to possession for plea deal.
Almost no one is in federal prison for “just” possession. Almost no one serves time in federal prison for possession when their case is plead down. Part of an attractive plea deal is avoiding federal prison. Lots of weird shit counts as violent crime even though we wouldn’t think it was. Felony murder is a thing.
A red herring, especially in a narrative, is some piece of information meant to be misleading.
Biden pardoning of people with possession charges amounted to very few actual pardons, didn’t account for the Byzantine legal system and didn’t have any effect for precursor crimes. The intent was to get some publicity and seem like he’s doing something while actually not doing anything. Purposely misleading information. A red herring.
Yeah it’s not many people because most convictions are from the states, which he does not have jurisdiction over. Ok? Got it? The president can not do anything about state convictions or sentences. So he did what he could with federal charges, because federal charges is what he has jurisdiction over.
Part of an attractive deal is pleading down more serious stuff down to simple possession.
Red herring:
Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with.
It’s not a red herring. What you are trying to do is closer (still not quite) to a red herring because you are trying to draw attention away from what he could do and trying to minimize it with the repeated “not many”. The number doesn’t matter, he did what he had jurisdiction over, You are the one much closer to a red herring. Ciao.
Oh the pwesident doesn’t have any juwustiction owver the states… nothing he could do!
If I was a politician with more than 50 years under my belt running on tough on crime platforms and spearheading racist laws that ramp up the convictions of millions of black Americans for minor drug offenses with the knock on effect of providing police the chance to go hunting for more evidence, detain and steal the property of those people, would you call it a red herring when I grant clemency to the absolute barest minimum possible?
I obviously would, because I did, but language is mutable and it’s possible that there’s a better phrase when you’re responsible for the current juiced up run wild carceral slavery system holding millions and decide that a handful of people actually shouldn’t be in there but only the ones that you can very quietly grant clemency to without causing a stir and only the ones serving time on the most narrow range of charges which just happens to be nearly tangential to each other!
If you want to keep arguing about language, the word tangent should be your next target, I just described what most people would visualize as two shapes as being tangent to each other but only unbounded shapes like planes or lines can be tangential! Quick, start looking up definitions!
Biden created the laws and supported the growth of a system that put these people in prison for his entire career. He now occupies the highest seat of power in the nation and releases a tiny fraction of the people he’s responsible for the imprisonment of. If you won’t accept that it’s a red herring then I’m forced to call it bullshit.
Lol you turn to mocking the president about ??? the things he can and can’t do??? Yeah that about sums it up, you showed who you are. You have no idea how things work so sorry to say you’re acting like a child (with those spellings). Why am I even bothering, ciao.
Oh the pwesident doesn’t have any juwustiction owver the states… nothing he could do!
He’s just a smol bean sitting on the big chair! He literally can’t do anything more than the token gesture he made! No, don’t look at all the billions in federal funding and aid for state prisons! Don’t look at the huge standing army, don’t look at the billions in aid to foreign wars!
A sarcastic straw-man to avoid actually looking at Biden’s record. He believes it doesn’t matter as long as we can avoid electing Trump. Which would be okay if there was ever an alternative. But like any organization that’s effectively the only option, enshittification is happening with the Democrats.
More like he put the chock block in place to stop the roll and let the rich continue to fuck us before stepping side for the next Republican. I’m convinced he’s actively trying to lose this election between TikTok, EV restrictions, Gaza, and gaslighting people on the economy.
This is nonsense. If you believe that you should skip to violent revolution because you are not getting anywhere peacefully.
I’m (edit:not) saying I think that’s a good idea. But if you are going to refuse to vote for the better guy because he’s not good ENOUGH then you were never going to vote at all, and the rest of us will go back to persuading the last 3 swing voters.
Nobody is happy with Biden. Do you want to continue pushing the boulder up the mountain at the pace we don’t like, or let go and see what happens to the town downhill?
I don’t think it is taking accountability to flip a coin on whether or not an authoritarian demagogue insurrectionist who wanted to nuke random hurricanes and Iran should be in charge of the largest arsenals on the planet. Nor does adding additional corrupt regressives to SCOTUS teach the Dems a lesson, but it does put the very act of voting in jeopardy. It is myopic to throw the vote away.
It’s not even anything to do with China. Bibi and Biden do not get along, and Bibi is doing everything he can to damage Biden in this issue hoping he gets Trump, so he can show everyone what an actual genocide looks like.
Biden is in an impossible situation - trying to keep some influence over the horror while also staying at an arms length for all the people who apparently think he is giving orders to the IDF
One of them was telling me, today, how he is donating money to JFK Jr because he is siphoning away so many votes from Biden. He acted like he was involved in some secret mission and was being so sneaky.
It would be nice if they actually rolled it back up at all instead of just putting a chock block in to keep it in place until a Republican comes along.
Like the german nazi party desperately wants more people to be evicted from Germany, I say great, evict the AfD politicians and their voters! Wooot! Everyone happy!
Right, when the right wing fuckos trot out their obviously bad-faith arguments, we should be taking to them to their logical fucking conclusions right the fuck away.
It would be beautiful to see the entire Republican wing of the house pissing themselves and losing their shit knowing that an assassin from Biden could get them at any moment. Especially after the first few drop and Biden just says “it’s me, it’s totally legal and cool, right?” Also making sure to drop the first 20-or-so at the same time so right after it happens the Dems have a majority in both the House and Senate so no Republican can actually bring a vote for impeachment.
They’d be screaming bloody murder because the only thing they actually care about is their own skins.
No. If you read the article, you’ll see that this isn’t Sauer’s argument. It’s another ragebait title, and based on the comments in this thread, it’s working.
EDIT: Okay, I see the flaw in my thinking. Carry on.
Yeah it is. Maybe you’d like to think there’s some subtlety we’re missing because Sauer stated the President would need to be impeached to lose immunity, but what happens if the President assassinates anyone who would impeach him?
His argument is that there would be no possible legal recourse if a US president tried to seize absolute power the way Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, by having everyone in the legislature that might oppose him lined up and shot.
I know Elmer always lost, but I still want to see Trump being chased by Biden with a rifle like Elmer Fudd. Real life doesn’t have to imitate the cartoon.
I’ve seen a massive black man in a lovely dress and heels pick up a bachelorette, position her so she’s straddling him while he’s still standing, and vigorously dry-hump her in time with the music while continuing to sing the song at the top of his lungs, while her friends all cheered. I found that far less off-putting than this titty fondle.
Look at the people sitting right next to them watching the show. This is legitimately one of the most uncouth things I’ve ever seen.
Yep. The people at a show like that are 1) consenting adults, who 2) went to the show on purpose, and 3) didn’t bring their kids.
No one in the audience at a kid-friendly Beetlejuice showing went there to watch Bobo get her tits fondled while she blows vape smoke in people’s faces.
In some contexts yes… honestly for me I have a problem with two people getting frisky to that level in a packed theater while a play is going on that people came there to see. I don’t think they should go to jail or anything but I would definitely want them kicked out, and, it seems like they’d be happier in a hotel or something anyway, so win-win.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.