Experience. It’s illegal in Brazil, no one has ever been convicted. It’s a hard crime to define. It’s like a law saying “strictly no ambling”, but how do you differentiate from regular walking?
Because at least in theory, lobbying is at the core of a functioning republic. If you and couple neighbors get together to try to convince your county aldermen to fix some potholes, that's lobbying. Any time a person tries to influence their representative, it's lobbying. It's incredibly difficult to have actual codified laws that allow the things you want without also opening up tons of loopholes for corruption.
Because directly receiving money is already illegal. Anything currently legal is so because it's protected by the same things protecting local organizations putting up flyers/billboards/radio ads/etc. Even stricter monetary limits don't really work, as you end up catching things such national humane society ads, because if they contain any messaging regarding support for legislation/wanting new legislation it's considered lobbying.
It's really just an intro to the subject, but Knowing Better has a great video on it. Great leaping off point. The very short and very inadequate TL;DW is essentially that "get the money out of politics" doesn't actually mean anything.
I don’t have time to watch the video but I will later. It’s never going to be possible to get the money out of politics 100%, but transparency and getting rid of super pacs would go a long way.
Oh there is absolutely more we could be doing, especially regarding tracking dark money spending. I was primarily pointing out that "we should just get rid of lobbying" is an almost entirely nonsensical statement.
Campaign finance reform can. Anyone running for office has a cap on how much can be spent. Political organizations also have a cap and they have to disclose who their donors are.
No more dark money.
I’d say we should go so far as to move to sortition (randomly selected people serving a term in office) but I am pragmatic.
Right. Politicians know nothing about technology half the time, right?
Who does know - it’s people in the technology field.
They have to communicate somehow. Not saying it’s not broken today, and I think you could have a clever setup of advisors, but at the end of the day there will just have to be some kind of input by experts.
Lawyers for the 14-year-old and her parents say that American “knew or should have known the flight attendant was a danger.” They say the failure of other crew members to confiscate the employee’s phone allowed him to destroy evidence.
Well that’s pretty damning. Makes me wonder how many other times this flight attendant has done this.
Do you see that image, look how fucking visible the flash is and it’s in the dead centre of the seat. No way a 14 year old would not see that giant arse phone stickers to the lid.
Also
The family said an FBI agent later told the girl’s mother they did not arrest the man because they did not find any incriminating images on his phone.
Innocent until proven guilty, and allegedly he’s been cleared by the FBI. Yet you’re here acting like he’s guilty, has a history of this, and should never have been hired.
Of course! Let’s consider the following extremely reasonable options:
The attendant accidentally left his phone in the bathroom (with the flash on, or no passcode so a malicious 14 yo could turn it on). Kid goes in the bathroom and hatches a plot. Peels the sticker perfectly off broken seat lid, attaches the phone, and takes a picture of it.
Same as above, but the girl finds a pad of the stickers and a sharpie also left on the bathroom, thereby removing the need to peel. OR she carries her own pad of the united broken stickers and a sharpie.
The kid pickpockets his phone on the way by and either of the options above. Roll for dexterity!
The bathroom was so dark at the start of the flight, our good Samaritan flight attendant tapes a phone with the light on under a broken sticker (even though it’s fine to use) and writes seat broken on it just so everyone is aware anyway. Everyone can now see and doesn’t fall in.
All completely sane and reasonable alternatives to assuming an unnamed individual (who is not getting publicly maligned because he’s unidentified) was trying to add kiddie fun bits to his spank bank.
“Lawyers for the family suggested that the flight attendant removed the phone and erased images of the girl before letting her father see his iPhone photos.”
There’s another spot as well mentioning the father taking the phone from him, but some crap ad is keeping the text covered up. So yes. It says the guy got the phone back and then the dad demanded to see his pictures on his phone.
Jesus christ, man. The article literally says he made the Steward show the pictures on his phone. Did you fail reading comprehension back in grade school?
Lawyers for the family suggested that the flight attendant removed the phone and erased images of the girl before letting her father see his iPhone photos.
That does not say the phone was most definitely his in any way, shape, or form.
For all you know the father demanded to look at his phone, he let him, the father found nothing and claimed he must've taken the phone back and deleted the photos. That does not prove fucking shit, it's one sides story that is so far not backed up by any evidence.
You wanted the quote from the article. I gave you the quote from the article. Don’t go claiming “well the article might not be true” yadda yadda yadda. Don’t go changing the argument to something else after I showed you that you were wrong, dumbass.
If it wasnt his phone, he would immediately clear himself by saying “hey boss, my phone is right here in my hand, the kid is lying about that being my phone, mine was never in that bathroom.”
The phone was, as reported by the FBI, given back to the man being accused before they asked him to let them look at the photo gallery.
If it wasnt his phone, they wouldnt have given it to him in the first place. Very easy way to clear his name, when the girl accused him on the plane.
You are literally taking one sides story at face value and using the lack of something being reported as damning evidence.
And it was not reported by the fucking FBI, it was the family that said the FBI cleared him. The FBI has announced nothing and you believe they have because you’re trying to justify blaming an innocent person.
… Because the guy was removed from working, and american airlines wouldnt let people openly think they hired a pedophile if they immediately proved he wasnt a pedophile on the plane?
Think that through for a second dude, why would the company risk their name being dragged through the mud in a lawsuit if, while the plane was literally still in the air, multiple eye witnesses could confirm and corroberate that the accused employee immediately showed that his phone had not entered the bathroom?
Anyone would be stood down from the job after an allegation like that. It’s standard practice, it means nothing.
Think about man, why would a company risk talking about an ongoing legal case with the media. They send them the canned statement “we take this seriously blah blah blah” and that’s it.
You think the P.R. Team has more sway than the companies law firm?
Just because something was not said, does not mean it’s because it must be true.
They wouldnt talk to the media at all, they would kill this dead and deader before the kid or her dad could talk to a lawyer.
You arent understanding what I am saying. You are claiming that this man is being framed by either the girl, or her dad, for some alterior motive. If he could immediately prove the phone wasnt his, and that he was being set up, the airline would pull so many legal strings around their neck they wouldnt even risk making this into news.
Like. You grok what happens if this is proven false, yes? The airline will legally destroy this family for risking their name becoming the pedo plane people. They do not want this news article to exist. They have already lost major ground because this exists.
If they could have killed this before the public learned about it, they would. If they could prove the man was innocent, they would have made the girls lawyer understand this was a losing battle. And by losing, I mean losing money.
The fact that the lawyer took it to the news implies that they dont have much evidence to go on, and want a ton of public pressure on the airline. Probably for a data scrub of the phone. But the fact that they were capable of taking it to the news means the airline couldnt prove innocence and nip this in the bud.
In which case there is no traction for police or anyone else and this doesn’t become an article. Flight attendant says “no my phone is right here” and it’s all done. This theory doesn’t hold water.
That’s not what the article says. It says 1) they didn’t confiscate the phone after the incident, and 2) there were no pictures when they later checked.
He was not detained because there were no pictures on the phone. Luckily there is no feature in a phone that lets you remove videos or photos once taken, otherwise his innocence beyond reasonable doubt might be questioned.
Deleting a photo off your phone does not wipe the data, they can recover that in seconds after plugging your phone in and copying all the data which is frequently done at airports.
I would agree with you except it says the father was shown no pictures and later that the FBI didn’t arrest him. What it doesn’t say is the duration in between dad and FBI. There is not some permanent record of deleted files in your iPhone if you keep using it and it’s not confiscated. It doesn’t read like authorities picked the FA up at the stop, but more like this is a protracted dispute.
Even if no pictures in the first place it’s still suspicious AF and the sort of thing I would expect to receive a special visit by Chris Hansen.
Photographic evidence of said phone in a compromising position.
This is all evidence. There’s no refutation in the article. The only thing that is not there is some direct indicator of intent. It was enough to warrant a phone search and to dismiss him from work, and a clean search doesn’t mean dick by itself because intent to snag this kind of photo is also a punishable offence:
Do you expect the journalist ever got a chance to speak to the attendant?
When they rang the company to speak to them about the incident what is more likely “Oh yeah sure I’ll transfer you over to him have a nice chat” or “We here at Flight Company take all matters very seriously and will look into the matter”?
Why do you assume because this article is one sided hearsay, that it must be the truth and journalists investigated every angle so a lack of mention is an omission of guilt?
I expect that people are basically good and that nobody is out to frame this person. The fact that they are not named makes it much easier to discuss the situation on the merits and is the only reason I’m commenting. It’s not like this is some rag news site and anything that the girl or the FA write is necessarily hearsay since airlines don’t have bathroom cams. There is no reasonable “other side” I can conceive which would also play the role of reasonable doubt.
More to the point, the case doesn’t have to be solved beyond a reasonable doubt to investigate in the first place, or to report on. If AP News named him I would also take issue, but that isn’t the case right now.
That one would be easily refuted by the other flight attendents since the complaint claims he was given his phone back. One assumes no one is refuting his phone was in the bathroom at least.
Seems to be a civil lawsuit, so the standards are different. The investigation is also ongoing. Obtaining the photos is unlikely the only crime. Attempting to obtain the photos is also likely a crime. The FBI agent is not the judge of what is our is not illegal.
The flight attendant was not identified. They are not getting paid, but that is fully different than being punished for a crime (still has a negative impact on them.)
Ummmm Was that an employee’s phone taped to the toilet seat? Criminals being unbelievably bad at crime is not a defense. The FBI can’t arrest somebody without evidence, but nobody is claiming that they didn’t tape a phone to a toilet seat.
Ah, about destroying evidence - last I checked, it’s not as simple as just deleting stuff. So (if investigators get their hands on the actual phone, if they get a decent digital forensics expert, if Apple cooperates maybe) there’ll be evidence of both the root crime and the crime of trying to conceal it.
I can’t believe I’m going to bat for Pfizer, but apparently I hate deliberate, selective ignorance even more than greed. Oh well.
Paxton said the claim was based on only two months of clinical trial data…
It was a GLOBAL HEALTH CRISIS, you fucking morons. Millions of people died. Have you already forgotten how serious and urgent the situation was? Speedy availability of a vaccine was more important than lengthy, time-consuming tests.
Ask your god-king Trump. He’s the one who threw bushels of money at pharmaceutical companies and ordered them to solve the problem quickly.
Paxton’s claim is also a lie. We didn’t just invent vaccines a few years ago. They’ve been around for two or three generations now.
Not like they were working from scratch as far as efficacy. All the ingredients are well known. The only thing new was the the particular mRNA, that’s like saying steaks need two years of clinic trials because it comes from a different family of cows, has slightly different DNA, like saying Coke needs two years of trials when they make a new flavor.
Then after you take it, we can do the blood test after the injection and see the antibodies. What more is there to know?
What’s the mechanism that they are claiming the vaccine can be harmful? Why is this vaccine unique as compared to any other, proven safe for decades vaccine?
Don’t feel bad for going to bat for them. I have done some work for them. Pharm companies are True Neutral alignment. Condemn the things they do wrong, praise the things they do right.
What happened with her? She seemed okay when she was running a few elections ago and had some support, but then went a bit off and I stopped following her.
It’s a well-established fact that a part of her social media campaign was funded by the Russians.
To be clear: I’m not saying she necessarily did all this in cahoots with Putin. Russia funded divisive ads that boosted Sanders too. Regardless, Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the democrat candidate that a green voter is likely more aligned with. It’s an unfortunate effect of the two-party system. Nonetheless, those effects are well-known and Stein had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. She knew this, but decided to remain on the ballot anyway. Her candidacy therefore did help Trump win the election.
Sanders quit the race whilst Stein did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead,
i can do this too!
Sanders quit the race whilst Clinton did not. That means she acted as a spoiler candidate, where a vote for her means it’s more likely that a republican candidate wins instead, instead of the green candidate that a democrat voter is likely more aligned with.
she’s a presidential candidate. i don’t think there is a meaningful difference in stature, but there is in substance: she never exchanged a word with him or shook his hand, unlike the fascists and fascist-enablers you’re defending.
Wow. She somehow got herself a seat at Putin's table, then she sat down quietly, politely ate her sandwich, then got up and left without ever saying a word or interacting with the people at the table?
How unlucky she must have felt to find herself such an awkward situation. Egg on her face and all that.
I see. So Putin sat down at her table, uninvited, didn't introduce himself, she didn't comment on it, then he, Michael Flynn, and all the others finished their sandwiches and left Jill Stein in peace to eat her lunch alone.
I can see how that absolves her. But man, what a shitty thing to happen to someone when they just want to enjoy their soup and crackers in peace. With this one little social faux pas, Putin made millions of people across the country believe she was his stooge.
When she becomes president, what do you think she is going to do to retaliate against Putin for fucking her image so bad?
If the claim is that Democrats in a presidential administration have met with Putin and that’s the same as meeting with Putin in a non-official unelected capacity, it’s a poor one.
Also, I thought you had dismissed me as a troll. Make up your mind.
IIRC the event was literally an RT conference promoting how RT signal boosted “real change” candidates, coincidentally at the same time as an American politician that Putin had personally nursed a grudge against was running while associated with the establishment line.
IE, “We’re here today to celebrate our alliance of making sure anyone but Hillary is able to win!”
Her job at this time was to lead the foreign relations of the US. This job entails meeting many years of state who the US has serious disagreement with. It is a part of the job. This is not at all the same as going to dinner for fun
I didn’t. I refuted it with just as strong a claim as they made. if you think you can get them to provide a source, go for it. I happen to know it’s untrue, so I don’t care to bicker with them about it.
No it doesn’t. Operation mockingbird implies that every government tries to influence the narrative of the free press, and literally always has. And the CIA was no exception.
If you see no difference between an attempt to influence the narrative of the free press by the state, and not having a free press at all, only a literal extension of the state serving propaganda as the narrative, I don’t know what to tell you.
this is splitting hairs, and makes no difference in whether it matters that rt is an official government channel. it doesn’t because all media is propaganda.
Ever since I was young. I expressed interest in healthcare and becoming a nurse, so I began my study I gave my heart, my body, and my mind to you My long days and hours dedicated and giving you my all. There were times that working in the emergency room were extremely difficult, but also extremely rewarding. I have cried with my patients, with their families, and for them. They have even been there for me, and emotionally supported me during my hard times. The hands of all the patients and families that I have held, hold mine with me everyday of my nursing career encouraging me and showing me why I do what I do. I thought that would be all I needed to be able to care for them, and I know I had told you I would be with you to the end.
Told you I would be there through the good and the bad but you have taken my heart and slowly crushed the goodness it had.
You love bombed me with affection, because I knew I was going into something that matters. You made me feel comfortable, despite the rumors of your abusive past that I didn’t want to believe. The compliments, pizzas, and thank you letters began to slowly have less meaning. The staff I had to help began to go away. They were unnecessary, in your eyes but so necessary for the patients and nurses to provide what you advertise as “quality care”. When I thought it couldn’t get worse you proved me very wrong when you started gaslighting and manipulating us.
You go around asking my colleagues and I what we need to help patients and improve satisfaction scores but when we tell you the truth you instead send us online courses saying we need to smile more and be friendlier. I remember the first time I heard about nurses getting hit and how you asked them what they did to get hurt or didn’t do to prevent someone else from hurting them. Remember, you cant try to protect yourself by fighting back just lay there with your hands over your head during the minutes it takes for security to come. You started blaming us for things out of our control. Started criminally charging my colleagues, for things that were from what you are doing. As you know, the law doesn’t care for the Swiss Cheese Model." I no longer feel like you care about me or the people you say you serve. I sit at my front desk just waiting for someone to come in and shoot my patients and I, just because of your lack of care for our protection You haven’t even given us metal detectors or proper security to promptly keep us safe. You are only using and exploiting us to line your pocket with the common citizen’s money for overcharged healthcare You don’t care about anyone because you have a narcissistic personality.
If you say you cared, why don’t you listen while we beg on our hands and knees. You say that we do so much and that we put up with so much When we think we are finally going to get the love and support we deserve, we only walk in to get free pizza and pens for the “healthcare heroes”. Truth is you only care about your personal greed.
I want so desperately to continue to help people, but I cannot stay in this abusive relationship. You have asked me to do more with less every day, beating me to the point that my body and mind feel like they are black, bruised, and bleeding out. I’m only sorry to my colleagues and patients, you deserve so much better.
But my abusive partner is relentless, and if I stay, I will only lose my sanity and possibly my life forever.
What tone should I have used other than the deceased’s own?
“You are only using and exploiting us to line your pocket with the common citizen’s money for overcharged healthcare. You don’t care about anyone because you have a narcissistic personality.”
I’m not entirely sure at this point. Maybe caught between edits?
OP posts article lacking crucial letter FP correctly calls it out FP finds letter, adds it with contradictory/dismissive tldr FP called out but edit wording fixed ME yelling at cloud US all getting dumber having read this far
My comment was neither contradictory nor dismissive. Her letter is an indictment of capitalism, specifically in the healthcare sector. If you can’t read a short letter and process it or keep track of what you’re actually discussing, maybe you should stop arguing with people.
Yeesh. Speaking of yelling at clouds, you continuing to claim something doesn’t make it so. The contradiction you can’t seem to see was lamenting the lack of such a crucial part of the story (no letter) to essentially blowing it off (opinionated tldr at best) when it was finally found. Clear enough?
I appreciate the use of a reading comprehension jab when you immediately fail it yourself. Third time’s the charm? I mean, I tried to bring levity and the mere possiibility Lemmy not updating made things worse but no, you have to be right, get the last word on each post. Well have at it, champ.
You must have a mental issue. My comment includes the letter. And I wasn’t blowing it off. The entire point of the letter is exactly what I said.
It’s crazy to me that you have this level of dumb confidence despite the fact that every response you write is clearly downvoted. You have an issue. You should look into it.
I didn’t edit my post. I put the letter in my original comment 5 minutes after posting so what OP did is irrelevant. The letter has been there for anyone to read since I posted my original comment.
No one is making anything easy to sweep under the rug. The root cause of her complaint, in her own words, is that the system that takes advantage for her for a profit is the one that led to her death.
You don’t have to be dishonest. Read what she said in her own words.
No, I actually agree with it in general. It’s that there is so much more going on and comments like that encourage people to gloss over details or skip the article entirely.
I’m as upset as anyone about our late stage capitalism but damn, I’d hoped it’d be longer before the Lemmy was overrun with cynics trying to sum everything up into a neat little package.
What else would you call it? She literally says that they put her in this terrible situation with no help so that they could squeeze a few extra dollars in profit. So, yeah… that’s her point.
“You are only using and exploiting us to line your pocket with the common citizen’s money for overcharged healthcare. You don’t care about anyone because you have a narcissistic personality.”
You do realize that capitalism isn’t the only economic system that works people to the bone right? She’s calling out the people who run the hospital. How you came to the conclusion that her suicide was an anti-capitalist cry is beyond me.
Did you not read the quote? She didn’t work under another system. She worked for a private healthcare provider and explicitly called out their profit motive. Don’t be ignorant.
I’m in the medical field. Capitalism and quality healthcare are incompatible. Any capitalist country with good healthcare only has good healthcare because they keep capitalism out of it. It gets immediately worse when capitalism is reintroduced to the field. Look at the UK and Canada for reference. Not to mention, her suicide note explicitly says profit is the reason that her and her co-workers are suffering. Educate yourself on the issues or shut the fuck up
Our politicians are pushing hard for an American system in Canada, the provincial Conservative (Republican) governments are underfunding healthcare so they can turn around and say “See!? This is why we need a two tier system.” it’s bullshit.
But but but WiAtInG TiMeS! I cAn’T gEt InStAnT aPpOiNtMeNtS wItH SoCiAlIsM HeAlThCaRe!!
Oh, the first available appointment I can make in the current capitalist system is two weeks out? Teehee… Shhhh. I want to fight for the owners. Teehee 🤭
Even if the research had come out that masks did absolutely nothing to protect against Covid, I would have absolutely no regrets for masking up. We did what we thought was the right thing based on the evidence available and it harmed no one. The worst that would’ve happened if we were wrong (outside of a false sense of security) is that we looked silly for awhile. The people that were vehemently against wearing masks were tool-sheds who were manipulated into their position by an Administration who assumed it would affect Democratic-leaning cities/states more and who are so blinded by their anti-science views that they didn’t even understand the threat posed by Covid. Mask wearers did the right thing and the evidence backs us up. Anti-mask idiots hopefully learned an evolutionary lesson, but I doubt it has really ever sunk in.
I remember reading a while back that MAGA counties had significantly higher death and serious disease rates. Probably still do. I’m not sure about the apartment Republican strategy of actually working to kill their core voters, but I guess we’ll see how it works out for them.
I’ve read that TrumpCo wasn’t as concerned with it out of the belief that more populous Democratic counties/states would be more heavily impacted by Covid. If anything, they tried to take advantage of Covid to use it as a natural bio-weapon and this is probably their worst, yet least talked about crime that they’ll likely never face charges over. The strategy apparently blew up in their faces though, but by the time anyone realized, it was already too late to do anything about it. The damage had already been done.
Yup. I wiped my groceries down in the early pandemic. Turned out that probably wasn’t needed, but it’s a minor act that if the virus was in a different form could have helped.
Not just any Lee statue, the one from Charlottesville famous for the Unite the Right Nazi rally that culminated in Heather Heyer getting murdered.
I ended up in Charlottesville for a wedding a few years back and unintentionally parked right across the street from the statue. It was covered up with plastic; sent a shiver down my spine when I realized what it was. I’m glad they’re melting that shit down to turn a hate symbol into something beautiful. RIP Heather, you stood up for real American values.
Charlottesville was the wake up call for many. Never I expected nazis openly marching on US soil, chanting slogans straight from WW2… nearly a century after WW2.
It also must suck for the locals to have their town’s name being forever associated to those scums.
Are you even tangentially familiar with US history? US citizens have historically been right up there with Nazi level hate. Racism didn’t just go away. It just became illegal to own slaves.
I wasn’t pretending racism just ‘went away’, but I had met so many bystanders (pretending racism wasn’t that big of a problem because they didn’t get to experience first hand) arguing it would eventually go away with the dinosaurs, until Charlottesville happened right in front of their eyes. That made even bystanders realize how serious it was.
Nazis admired a lot of things from the US: eugenics, the genocide of the Native Americans, anti-semitic oligarchs like Ford.
The way WWII went made the US pump out anti-nazi propaganda to support its fight against the horrible regime. Let’s not forget that before, and after WWII the US Government supported many fascist groups as long as they were anti-communist. It was just convenient to foster anti-nazi sentiment during the war, especially with strange bedfellows like the USSR after they were betrayed by Hitler.
Yeah, generally, I prefer stuff like this to get preserved for historical value, just out of public view.
But many of these things are rallying points for hate right now, and the value of actually destroying that in the present outweighs the value to any historian or student of history in the future.
This one in particular. History won’t miss it. Burn the fucker.
The vast majority of these statutes, including this one, were erected decades after the Civil War and have no historical value beyond being physical representations of Jim Crow. The guy that commissioned it purchased land and oversaw the creation of a whites only park on the site where it was erected. They were rallying points of hate when they went up and they still are.
Commerce Clause is about as settled as it can get, though. Especially with a Court so enamoured with Founders Intent. Gibbons v Ogden is probably only behind Marbury v Madison in sacred status to this Court.
Overturning Gibbons would do more harm to the conservative cause than good.
The entire West Coast is liberal-controlled states. They could legally tax or simply cut off any goods or services bound for conservative states originating from or passing through their states.
All to defend a law that’s essentially unenforceable from a practical standpoint.
LOL as if there is something objectively true here. You cannot use the word “incorrect” in this conversation, but you know that and spread misinformation anyway. Everything we’re talking about is fully subjective, conjecture, and whataboutism. Time to get off your “look at me I’m so cool” soapbox.
Conservatives and billionaires absolutely approve of the Commerce Clause.
Overturning Gibbons would allow California to tax all internet traffic coming through LA from the rest of the world, or allow liberal states to seize high-capacity magazines being shipped across state lines.
Imagine Facebook having to pay import/export taxes every time someone accessed their account.
It would be the most impactful SCOTUS decision of all time, and would be absolutely ruinous to the business interests of the wealthy.
Stare decisis has only ever applied to things the justices approve of. It’s just that this may be the most fucked up group we’ve ever had. If all the former judges were also lovers of stare decisis, most of our civil rights would not be here, because many of those have been when previous judgements were overturned. Just think about the segregation of schools. Was Brown v The Board of Education not a reversal of Plessy v Ferguson?
The concept has always been about a bullshit homage that lawyers and judges dance around.
SCOTUS allowed the abortion bounty law SB8 to stand before Roe was overturned. It was clearly unconstitutional. So, they’re just expanding on it to the next logical steps.
IANAL: how exactly is this going to get overturned? The courts have already gotten rid of offender observer standing so the only way would be if this is actually enforced at which point the Supreme Court could simply allow the appeals court ruling stand.
Something something it’s not commerce because reasons.
Nevermind that the Commerce Clause has been cited to give the federal government authority to prohibit activities that are neither commerce nor inter-state, such as growing cannabis for personal use on your own property.
Schroedinger’s commerce. It’s commerce only when it’s convenient for prohibitionists.
The federal government doesn’t outlaw abortion, so they can’t use the Commerce Clause to enforce abortion restrictions enacted by the states.
However, the issues you cite with them being bullies with the commerce clause are centered on authority granted through Gibbons.
Gibbons was specifically about states trying to enforce laws (specifically state-granted steamboat monopolies) within their borders that had a direct impact on commerce within another state. The Supreme Court declared that a violation of the commerce clause because only the Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce.
Texas passing laws prohibiting travel to another state to seek abortions (which are federally legal) could only be allowed by SCOTUS by overturning Gibbons, which would be absolutely devastating.
That would be by far the most-impactful reversal in the Court’s history, and it can’t be overstated how much of a grenade it would be. Everybody would lose, and the GOP’s owners more than anyone else.
If SCOTUS were insistent (and consistent) that only the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet this Texas jurisdiction is trying to do just that, wouldn’t that logically be in violation of the Commerce Clause and SCOTUS would have to strike down?
I was arguing that SCOTUS isn’t consistent on this, but pretend they were.
They’d have trouble ignoring this one. This is isn’t tangentially related to interstate commerce.
The law is explicitly about preventing people from passing through a territory to engage in legal commerce in another state. Violation of the Commerce Clause isn’t a byproduct of the law - it’s the sole intent.
Imperialism, that’s what this is. It’s a naked land (or, I guess, mainly water) grab for strategic reasons, from land that is already owned by other nations.
For many of the same reasons that we can’t allow Putin to take any more European land, if the world turns a blind eye to China brazenly stealing territory in the South China Sea, what will they take next?
This is merely a precursor. Just wait until the broader resource wars kick off in the next 10-20 years.
We’re rapidly depleting fresh water reserves everywhere, from groundwater to glaciers.
Arable land is being squandered
There aren’t enough finite resources to convert the world to a zero carbon energy grid, whether the blocker is hard (not enough) or soft (extraction &/or refinement is economically unfeasible)
There are probably going to be dozens of wars fought directly due to resource constraints in the next 50 years.
I don’t mind people going to Church and practicing their religion, as long as they stay in their lanes and they’re not trying to force their religious beliefs on everybody else. Trying to better yourself and your community is great, there’s a ton of really nice people out there who go to Church and are just all around good people. It’s all the assholes that think their belief trumps everyone else’s rights that need to eat shit.
Not minding your own business is pretty much why Europeans settled North America…
The Pilgrims love to say they escaped persecution, but really they were far right extremists who were all pissed off most of Europe wouldn’t follow their strict rules.
So they came to America and started pumping out as many kids as possible. With the goal to become the majority so they could force everyone to follow their rules.
We’re worse off because there’s no more “empty” land to send them all too. If we ever colonize another planet, it’s 100% going to be extremists overwhelmingly signing up to go first. Until then, we’re stuck with them.
Would they have came here if the pilgrims didn’t first?
Like, not just “would they have wanted to” but would the Native population have repopulated the shoreline by then and repelled any settlers like they did the vikings?
The pilgrims were successful at gaining a foothold because they showed up in a place and time the local population had mostly just died off from sickness and the survivors initially helped the pilgrims.
50 years later, even 20 or 10 years later and it would be a different story.
The Pilgrims didn’t come here first (of the Europeans). They were beaten by multiple different European groups.
Like, not just “would they have wanted to” but would the Native population have repopulated the shoreline by then and repelled any settlers like they did the vikings?
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the French traders that came before or the Spanish pushing upwards from the entire continent they had control over?
The pilgrims were successful at gaining a foothold because they showed up in a place and time the local population had mostly just died off from sickness and the survivors initially helped the pilgrims.
Not relevant to your argument. Also I am fairly confident you are mixing up the Pilgrims and the Purtains. But hey facts don’t matter anymore so believe whatever you want.
When you make comments like that, people stop trying to help you…
Although I’ve noticed a trend where people like you assume they “win” when the other person gives up helping you. Just a heads up that’s not what it means.
“Staying in your lane” is the exact opposite of what Christians and Muslims are explicitly ordered to do. Convert acquisition is the primary objective of both faiths.
The Bible says if a family member considers another religion (or you just suspect they are) it’s your duty to God to kill them before it spreads to other people in your family.
It’s why ill never trust the people who claim they have to follow the bible literally. Either they don’t know what it says, or they’re absolute psychos.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage
About LGBT, there isn’t a single place in Bible, old or new testament where isn’t put in a positive light
It’s hard to tell what you were trying to say, but any attempt to clarify that is going to make it really easy to point out how wrong you are.
So I don’t expect you to even try
Btw:
For anyone wondering what “dispensationalism” means, it’s a thing Christians invented so they can ignore the parts of the bible that they don’t agree with. While saying the parts they do believe in are the literal words of God and have to be followed.
Well, I heard somewhere that it is written in the bible that those who scorn the bible will be visited by apocalypse, fire, earthquake, and flood which will obliterate your cities, but for those who believe in the bible will save themselves and find true redemption.
And I also heard somewhere it may have also stated in the Bible that the power and the greatness of God cannot be denied. Those who reject the Path to enlightenment must be destroyed.
Honestly while I get that the whole “you do you” mantra is the politically appropriate line these days…
No, I’m fucking not ok with people practicing their religions.
I’m really not ok with people telling their children that it’s not only possible for dead bodies to get back up and float up into the sky, but that it 100% happened and is the only reason they aren’t going to suffer eternally.
I’ll not ok with getting together to talk about how men are inherently better than women and that it was fine that an old dude raped a 9 year old because she was mature for her age.
I’m not ok with passing along the instructions that who your parents were defines an appropriate social caste for the rest of your life based on the supposed mechanics of resurrection.
These are not appropriate things for a modern society, and honestly I’m tired of pretending that it is fine.
Yes, I think the right to have the government not interfere in religion is important, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not I’m ‘fine’ with the superstitions from an age when people peed on their hands to clean them continuing to be given a social pass purely out of respect for ancestral tradition.
The thing is the whole purpose of religion is to force beliefs into others to attract them into the religion and make them pay money. THAT’S LITERALLY WHY RELIGIONS WERE INVENTED.
There is no “Im religious but I let other live their lifes.” They are constantly being told to invite friends and family to convert them and to have 10 children, so the children can be converted too.
The EPI estimated about $50 billion per year in wage theft back in 2014 which would equate to about $65 billion today. It could also have changed a bit since then.
Yeah, they really marketed masks wrong in the beginning. Hell, think of how much more traction Trump could’ve had by marketing masks this way. AND he could have sold a shitton of branded MAGA masks.
All the MAGAs would be wearing their MAGA masks, probably harassing people that weren’t wearing masks.
But Trump was simply too vain to put on a mask himself, so the MAGAs emulated that and searched the internet for conspiracy theories they could believe in to avoid thinking of themselves as being vain.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.