Groups Conservatives Hate and Threaten: sigh “When in Rome Crazy Conservative Fascist Land…” buys guns “But we’re not going to cuddle with them while we rock ourselves to sleep or name them Betty lou.”
POC, women and LGBT folks are, and have been, the biggest gun buying demographic for a few years. Ain’t that somethin’? This old white guy is here for it.
Gun are not magical protection talismans. Learn, train, go learn and train more. Know your rights, know the laws in your area.
There’s a steep learning/practice curve. For example, the safety rules are childishly simple. What’s not simple is practicing them religiously, practicing until mere knowledge becomes reflex.
And then you have to ask, and answer yourself, under what conditions am I willing to take a human life?
"I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart.”
― Stephen King, The Gunslinger
Think on it.
If you’re willing to go through all that, get a fucking gun. If not, do not.
As someone who served (for school, not the cause), I disagree.
If these fascists get their way and start coming for “undesirables,” better a poor shot than no shot at all. Training dramatically increases the chance of hitting someone, but again, better to have a chance than none at all.
And you can learn the basics in a couple outings. Guns are not a steep learning curve, especially if you focus on a single model. They’re so easy to learn, a willfully illiterate Alabamian can do it. The bar for a successful IKEA assembly is far higher.
Gun people, by that I mean gun fetishizers, just like to play pretend it’s highly technical to be a basic user. Like 90s dads with camcorders.
They’re a dangerous tool largely designed to be user friendly, nothing more.
Focusing on a single weapon is great, and a great point! LOL, I’m all over the place.
But the number of women I’ve dated that have a 9, uh, somewhere, uh, just in case… Having said that, the women I’ve taught are always far better than the guys.
You got a point in that something is better than nothing. Mostly. I just don’t want people carrying around guns when they haven’t made the commitment to training, safety and the law. Good way to get themselves, and others, in worse trouble.
From what people say on nextdoor.com, it’s astonishing what my neighbors think makes for a justified shooting.
And yes, I fully expect the fascists to come for many of us. We’ve had it easy and peaceful in America, pretty much forever. I’ve outlined a scenario many times where my conservative neighbors come to disarm me, “for my own good”.
Good points, and yeah ego gets in the way with a lot of CoD obsessed dudes.
I’d rather we didn’t live in gun dystopia, but the fascist gun nutters are ironically the reason why everyone else kind of needs one.
So with that said. Better to buy one commitment or no, with the only proviso being a trigger lock and keeping the key in a secured place. Then it’s an insurance policy if there’s violence in the streets. With any luck, You can easily fumble through looking through a keyhole or smart doorbell at a fascist banging on your door demanding to take/end you, bringing the gun downstairs quietly, aiming straight at the door, and clumsily shooting through.
Again, better that chance than just accepting violent death.
To that last point, it freaks me out how many people intend to lie down and die rather than fight back.
“You gonna fight tanks and planes, LOL!”
No. I’m going to defend my family and my home. If that means my death, that was in the cards anyway. Rather die with my boots on than starve on a train.
Having said that, the women I’ve taught are always far better than the guys.
I suspect that’s the same reason all the women I’ve worked with in software development have been really good at their jobs: the ones who wouldn’t have been aren’t there at all in the first place.
I won’t commit to saying I can do something professionally unless I’m damned fucking sure I can, because any small failures will become glued in everyone’s memories, kind of like me being around at all tends to stand out. It’s exhausting.
“I just posted a $91 million bond, $91 million on a fake story, totally made-up story,” Trump said, adding that the judgment was, “based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never heard of, I know nothing about her.”
Every civilian aircraft is required by air traffic regulations to broadcast it’s flight path and identifier.
So once a plane registration is publicly known to be owned by someone they can of course be tracked. Of course it doesn’t mean that the owner is on the plane, but it certainly let’s you gather how much they fly around. Turns out that Taylor’s jet is used a lot even for private jets, which obviously doesn’t make her look good from an environmental point of view. Now she tries to use her wealth to silence people tracking this and pointing it out to the public. Shame on her!
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.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.