Notice how Trump dilutes and distorts the meaning of words on purpose so they don’t hit as hard when used toward him. I find it terrifying that he’s openly calling everyone a fascist. He’s being honest about his true intentions, America.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them!!!
These people want to abandon everything that makes their lives great for… (checks notes) The rights to control women, marry children, and to burn crosses on their ethnic neighbors lawn.
Mostly (and this is probably true for over 60% of Republicans), it’s about defunding half of the government programs they rely on but don’t realize it, sold to them through the euphemism of “tax cuts”.
I think the right to control women is next on the list, but even then we see that even republican public opinion on abortions is stricter than the left’s, but would actually prefer less extreme laws than what has been passed.
As much of a meme as it is, most rural religious folk aren’t militant about marrying children and burning crosses. We hear about every instance of child marriage cause it sucks so much, and people have been openly, violently racist despite the law for centuries, all it takes is a town full of like-minded people.
Yeah I mean even just go to BLS inflation calculator and put in car prices. Cars are cheap, but if federal min wage was equal to min wage in 1960 (and this is by official stats) it would be able $16 an hour. Cars are cheap, we’re getting shafted on pay like hell. Hopefully tech moves so fast it just blows everything out of the water. Hopefully not literally. Hopefully not hell on the other side. Time will tell. But my backup is a shotgun to the forehead so I got my backup plan lol
Please don’t have my backup plan. Truly a “if it’s hell on earth” situation. It just gives me mild comfort I can extinguish at least my human consciousness is necessary. Lol
Are you going by “it’s not gay if it’s a three way” rules?
Either all people are of one gender, in which case it’s homosexual. Or there’s some combination of genders. So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.
Element of multi-gender participation, but if say two guys are both wishing the other guy wasn’t there, they never look at each other or come into contact… it’s not very bisexual, no?
I’m not going to assume your experiences, but I’m a mostly straight guy who’s had both FFM and MMF threesomes while I experimented with polyamory.
I vastly preferred the FFM stuff, because boobies, but I did learn that I can find effeminate men attractive, if I couldn’t it would have never worked. If you’re really a person who can’t interact with someone of the same sex, then I really don’t think a threesome is viable.
I’ve had threesomes end where the other dude just really wasn’t into it, and we all decided to call it off. If everyone isn’t having fun, then no one is.
Im just getting specific in a reply to the commentor above.
A bisexual + “plus one” implies that the plus one is not the regular partner, and that if the “plus one” is not bisexual, i.e in this context engaging in sex with the same gender, then that implies the original couple is instead.
So a threesomes is not a “bisexual, plus one” unless the couple is in a same sex relationship, i.e 2 men or 2 women who invite a 3rd of the opposite sex to bed.
A threesome with an otherwise hetro couple who invites a 3rd of either gender to all have sex with is a bisexual threesome, but not a “bisexual, plus 1” situation. The same threesome where everyone engaged in only hetrosexual contact would just be a hetrosexual threesome.
The convoluted techincal logicistics of why it’s not gay and precisely when it does become so is silly. The answer is that yes, doing sexual acts with someone of the same sex/gender meets the common definition of being gay. But gay and straight are just words used to self identify. Humans are way dynamic than trying to cling to these arbitrary labels. Having a threesome has zero impact on you telling a potential partner that you are gay/straight because you’re interested in them.
Labels are important and helpful, but we gotta remember they are just words that can’t define the sum of a human not accurately catch the essential essence of any single person. So it’s healthy to recognize their limitations, trying to precisely define what is and isn’t gay just feels like cope so you can keep calling yourself straight. Just do it, this doesn’t matter.
The real point here the people discussing this seem to be missing is that it doesn’t matter what any of us consider to be gay. The members of Moms for Liberty would definitely not call this “normal” in terms of sexuality and would be against it if it were any other three people.
Well, that is is true. This sort of nuance, understanding and acceptance would absolutely be lost on someone so outwardly bigoted. Everyone, and especially MoL essentialism about what IS and isn’t normal is just so sad and misguided.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that it isn’t worth saying whether it’s gay or not because it ultimately doesn’t matter. It’s not even worth debating on an academic level. Sexuality is a spectrum and this is just one part of the spectrum.
Im not concerned about “gay or not.” I personally think you have to physically interact with someone to have sex with them, but honestly dont care if someone considers all threesomes gay. “Be gay, do threesomes” would be a fine credo for the world.
Im just making a pedantic comment in reply to a pedantic comment.
Straight guy in an open marriage here. Have never engaged in sex with another man, have had plenty of mfm threesomes. Two men fucking the same woman at the same time are not fucking each other.
The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.
MFM is two straight guys, one lady. That is fun. I am straight so yes, that means I have done straight threesomes. Have also done some with bi guys, but it’s not a lot different from the perspective of the lady, maybe slightly more relaxed.
FMF I don’t understand - I agree that is probably no fun unless the ladies are bi. But it’s entirely possible to have a good time with two straight guys.
No offense to anyone’s preference, assignment, or kinks… but yes. You have to at least be a little bit gay to bang someone with another of your same gender.
Except this case proves that to be a lie. I’m sure there were boys in suits there. Unless boys are also required to wear dresses? If that’s not the case, then this is a clear case of one student being treated differently from others.
If folks don’t know, in the charter school world, “Classical Academies” are often code for right wing indoctrination. The idea is that if you just focus on the “classics” of western education and their direct descendants, then HEY NOW! Suddenly Rudyard Kipling is your best insight into Indian literature, and Joseph Conrad into African. The American founding fathers were totally into Roman republicanism! The King James Bible is literally poetry! What is a Chinua Achebe anyway?!?!?!?!?!?
It’s an inherently conservative idea that a viable totality of useful knowledge is contained within books that are all part of the western canon circa 1937, so even if a few schools engage in it in good faith, a watered down version offered at the primary and secondary levels is just catnip for those who want to engage in a little brain washing at the public expense.
Edit: This MCA is likely a little less explicitly creepy than some, but it’s an E.D. Hirsch “Core Knowledge Foundation” school that is designed to hammer home a certain set of facts and cultural touchstones, rather than worrying about the emotional well being or broad-based thinking skills that a good modern curriculum will include. It’s basically the old story of “old person sees kids don’t know everything he was taught, lashes out at schools,” if it were from a curmudgeonly English professor. It almost certainly draws the same type of parents and administrators that other Classical Academies do.
Which is still unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court ruled that a woman could not be made to dress in typically female clothing as a condition of her employment… I mean unless it’s something like Hooters or Professional Modeling I guess.
Here we go again and again on this repeat episode of Hold Your Nose And Vote For Joe Where as Joe is enacting and upholding protections for the LGBTQ community, Trump is only too happy to repeal that shit so fast. Not only that, but big boi Trump also has alluded to glassing Iran, which is way further than Biden has escalated towards. Biden is sadly, our current cold comfort here. We’re stuck between a rock and a slightly more malleable corrupt WW3 causing dipshit rock
The more people vote for the left, the further left their position will become. It’s a well established component of political theory called the Overton window.
Thank you for the reference! Learnt something new. As far as I’ve read, the Overton window is not just that, but describes a general window of acceptable ideas or propositions. Of course, influenced by possible (public) majorities.
But the implication is that if you think of the political spectrum between left and right, then the largest 2 parties will always align themselves immediately to the left and the right of the median - the centre point of contemporary politics.
Move that point (through voting) and you move the policies.
Yes of course, but that’s not really relevant to the broader point here.
Democrats have won more elections than Republicans, yet they have moved to the right. So what will it take to move them left?
The person I replied to suggested that voting can move the Dems left, but I disagree. At a national level, the Dems have been captured by corporate money.
They understand the best way to get votes is through advertising dollars, and the best way to get dollars is corporate fundraising. Other countries call this corruption, but here we call it free speech.
Democrats have won more elections than Republicans, yet they have moved to the right. So what will it take to move them left?
They haven’t won enough. If people like Bernie are still losing primaries because “commies won’t win general elections” and Dems still have to go for the “middle-of-the-road” candidate while Republicans can prop up the literal antichrist, that means they still haven’t won enough to cause a shift.
Once they get enough wins (possibly in a row) that Republicans are the ones forced to go for a “middle-of-the-road” candidate, that’s when Dems will actually have to act as a left wing party to get votes.
EDIT: also, unless I miscounted, Dems actually have less wins than Republicans post-FDR.
We can’t afford to keep this status quo for another generation, we are destroying the planet.
And what’s the alternative? I mean, there’s a lot of stuff that can be done, but voting for Biden (or whoever is the leftmost candidate between the main two parties) doesn’t prevent you from doing any of that. You can do that and organize, go to protests and whatnot.
Yes we both agree that you can vote and also protest. My argument here was that voting for Dems does not move them left, so I’m not sure how protest is relevant.
But since you asked for the alternative, I think the american labor movement of a century ago is the last truly successful model. It required a large peaceful protest movement, various forms of violent direct action, and a broad base of support in the populace who would not be swayed by propaganda. Those who died in that fight earned us the weekend, workplace safety, and dignified retirement. They planted the seeds for the most progressive era in American history.
I think we have to reckon with the fact that recent protest movements all failed. George Floyd defunded 0 police departments. The Womens March was a punchline. After Occupy Wall Street, banks and hedge funds just got bigger. Anti-Iraq war protests may have curbed some brutality, but that war continued for 2 decades.
These protests are on the right side of history, and changing peoples minds is good, but to change peoples material condition you need to change policy too.
I know there’s alternatives, my point was just that voting Dem doesn’t preclude, or slow down, any of them.
My argument here was that voting for Dems does not move them left, so I’m not sure how protest is relevant.
It eventually has to. But they have to win a lot for that to happen. In the past 80 years, the US never had three consecutive Dem terms, which means the needle is very much in between of the two parties (if not leaning right since Republicans actually had them once). So both can continue with their current policies and hope to be elected.
In the end that’s what matters to politicians, more than upholding any values they might champion: getting elected. Therefore the only way to shift the window in a FPTP system (barring violent protests, which are viable but a different matter), is to keep electing one party and send the message to the other that, unless they calm the fuck down, they’re not getting the seat ever again.
There’s no way that after three or four consecutive Dem terms Republicans will still keep campaigning on killing abortion and LGBT rights. They want that seat, and, like every political party in a similar system, they’ll compromise to get it. At that point, when their opponent isn’t a cartoon villain anymore, Dems will lose their main selling point and will be forced to prop up actual leftist policies to retain votes.
I still dont understand why, after 3 or 4 victories, the Dems would abandon neoliberalism and become a leftist party. Why would they change their winning strategy?
Because they don’t win due to neoliberalism, they win due to their opponent being the literal antichrist. The point is to force Republicans to change their (supposedly) losing strategy, and have Dems react to that.
You can see how, for example, after the three consecutive Republican terms of ‘80-‘92, Democratic candidates have shifted more towards the right on average, in order to recapture more “average” voters.
I don’t have the competence to lay down accurately the process or know the best examples for it, but it’s pretty much basic game theory. If you keep losing consensus you have to adjust your strategy to be more similar to whoever is winning.
Ranked choice would actually let people pick both an independent as first choice together with the safe choice as second (and the bad choice dead last)
No liberal - I haven’t. Your attempt to pretend that there’s anything that can be called “left” in the US political establishment is just that… a pretension. Trump is “left” of Hitler - you want to pretend that Trump is (somehow) “left” now, too?
If you are going to talk about the Dems, do so without attempts at misleading people over what the Dems really are - the “good cop” in the little anti-democratic gaslighting game that US formal politics has always been. There is nothing “left” about them and never has been.
You’ve either misunderstood me, are willfully ignorant, or not very bright.
The term left is by it’s very nature, relative. Any person with two hands will have a left-most and a right-most hand. We omit “most” from left-most because it’s superfluous. Just because a person is standing to your right, does not mean that one of their two hands is not their left-most hand. If that person moves to your left, the inverse is also true.
If the “center” of the political spectrum is too far to the right for your liking, then you can drag it back closer to what you would like by voting for the left-most major party.
If you’re driving a car and it’s drifting into the ditch on the right side of the road you haul on the left side of the steering wheel. Imagine giving up saying “well I can turn left or right but that seems pointless because I really want to be over there. Instead I’ll just pout and roll into the ditch.”
For fuck sake that was literally the point of their comment you fool. At least look up what the Overton Window is before coming in this hot because you look like an idiot.
you cannot - I repeat cannot - move the Overton window left by voting for right-wingers.
Yes you can. You can lower the temperature of something by pouring over it something hot, but less hot than what you’re trying to cool down.
In the same way, voting for a right-winger over a far right-winger will shift the Overton window to the left. Because left and right are relative terms, like the other guy was trying to say.
You can lower the temperature of something by pouring over it something hot,
ROFLMAO!
If that was true, liberal, you wouldn’t be in this pickle, would you? How long have you libs been voting for the “lesser evil” now?
The only thing you get when you pour liberalism over fascism is fascism that burns harder. In fact, you don’t get fascism without liberalism providing it with fuel and fertilizer.
But hey… go ahead. Try and solve this problem with “more of the same.” Maybe “thoughts and prayers” will start magically working, too.
If that was true, liberal, you wouldn’t be in this pickle, would you? How long have you libs been voting for the “lesser evil” now?
Remind me the last time the US had three consecutive Democratic terms? 80 years ago? Not sure why you’re saying something isn’t working when it hasn’t even happened.
You’re brain has been so broken by the bullshit “liberal/conservative” dichotomy fed to you by cable news that you don’t even know what words mean.
Liberals are center right conservatives. Calling a progressive a liberal is an insult.
I seriously implore you to try to inform yourself as to what these words mean. Calling someone who is borderline socialist a “liberal” immediately betrays your ignorance about politics.
Really? I’m not the one here pretending that calling yourself “progressive” actually makes you a leftist, lib.
That’s you - not me.
Calling a progressive a liberal is an insult.
Good… I’d hate to know that my insults missed.
Calling someone who is borderline socialist
“Borderline socialist” isn’t socialist, genius - it still means your politics are thoroughly ensconced in the reformist category. And like all people who ascribe to reformist politics, you will enthusiastically join with reactionaries as soon as the radicals start threatening your precious status quo. It’s the only thing one can expect from liberals, after all - even the ones pretending to be edgier than the run-of-the-mill types.
edit: forgot to answer your question: no, I don’t remember getting mad or upset. The only angry person in this thread is you, and I think most people are confused by your unprovoked aggression.
I hope everything is ok, bud. It seems like you’re having a real tough time. I truly mean that. Your worldview seems to be causing you great distress and I can’t imagine how exhausting that must be.
I don’t get “upset” by ignorant strangers on the internet. If anything, I just feel sorry for you.
Growing up in an extremely conservative, Evangelical, Fox News household, so I know the exact intentions of ending that sentence with “liberal.” Like it’s a curse word, and like anyone outside your sad little bubble is going to care (plus, as we’ve established, you don’t even know what the word means).
Spoiler: they don’t.
In fact, given your tenuous grasp of these terms, and what you think “liberal” means… Your attempted insult becomes more of a compliment. So thanks!
It’s like those people who try to use some variant of “hurr durr you live in your mom’s basement” on grown-ass adults who have lived alone for at least a decade… It just doesn’t work lol.
It’s also a pretty big self-report. You don’t need a poly-sci degree to learn this stuff.
plus, as we’ve established, you don’t even know what the word means
Really? I’m the one that doesn’t know what the term liberalism means? I’m the one that doesn’t understand how liberal ideology has been foisted on the world ever since it’s inception in the (so-called) “Enlightenment”? I’m the one pretending that calling yourself “conservative” (somehow) makes you *non-*liberal?
Newsflash, genius - it’s all liberalism. You exist inside a liberal world order - concepts such as fascism and capitalism are features of it.
Your attempted insult becomes more of a compliment. So thanks!
Colonialism and capitalism flatters you? Yeah… that tracks.
You don’t need a poly-sci degree to learn this stuff.
Yeah, pointing out something can be insulting does not mean I’m insulted, or angry or upset or… Like I know you’re trying real hard to get that reaction from me, but like I said before I honestly just feel bad for you.
It’s not only sad, but very very weird. Why don’t you step back for a moment and see how this comment exchange began… What kind of depressing life leads a person to behave the way that you did (and still do).
You are clearly very angry, and it’s sad to see that anger so misdirected… Like you don’t even have a grasp on the absolute basics of political classifications, yet you’re so damned mad at some boogeymen you invented to fit into these fabricated classifications.
I hope you get some help, not only with the misguided anger, but also with your inability to define or understand basic political terms. Especially if you’re going to be so outspokenly vitriolic towards strangers about them.
It’s a really bad look.
Edit:
I expect nothing more than the same shit, so don’t expect me to reply (or honestly, even read) your response to this.
I hope you can get some help, and maybe part of that will be realizing when you’re wrong and learning not to double down on stupid.
Yeah, pointing out something can be insulting does not mean I’m insulted,
Your fellow libs seem to disagree - in fact, they seem quite perturbed every time I point out that their precious “liberal democracy” is about as democratic as “social darwinism” is Darwinist.
some boogeymen you invented to fit into these fabricated classifications.
If I’m wrong you have nothing to worry about, do you? The Wall Street shills will save you from the fascists and you can go back to sleep knowing that the fascists will be sicced onto the “correct” people - ie, not you.
Yet… you and your fellow libs don’t seem very confident that this is the case.
so don’t expect me to reply (or honestly, even read) your response to this
The problem is that there isn’t a left to vote for, you either vote for right or far-right. That’s why the ratchet effect exists, both parties are right wing, just separated in how extreme they are, with the Reps being overt fascists.
Actual leftist change is not going to come from voting for liberals. Absolutely vote for Biden if you wish, this isn’t an argument against voting for him. However, if you think voting for a right winger will shift the overton window to the left, you don’t understand the nuances of the overton window.
Actual leftist change comes from direct action and organizing. Strikes, mutual aid, canvassing, raising class awareness, spreading leftist theory, protesting, actual outside pressure is what changes the overton window.
If there’s a spectrum between left and right, then there’s a point on that spectrum in the center of how the populace feels. If you have two major parties they will naturally arrange themselves immediately to the left and the right of that point. They have to in order to gather up as many undecideds as possible - they will naturally win everyone further left or further right who is not an idiot.
Voting moves this center point along the spectrum. The ratchet effect pulls to the right only because that’s the trajectory over the last few decades. If the trajectory was to the left in recent decades the inverse would be true.
Direct action and organising might also move the center point along the spectrum, but not as much as voting, and only if voting reflects the results of direct action.
Actually it’s well established and well understood political science, ironically you’re just rejecting it as “vibes-based” because you don’t like the vibe.
Yes political donations are a problem, but the inescapable fact is, the more people that vote for the dems, the more they will move to the left.
Sadly, your position is precisely that which conservative proponents would have you adopt. Well done.
No, that’s not my plan, and it’s remarkably dishonest of you to put words in my mouth.
I am simply stating that meaningful change has always happened with outside pressure, and not via voting. I am not arguing against voting or arguing for waiting, I am arguing for touching grass and organizing. Voting can be a part of that, but if you want actual change, it will never be enough.
Socialism in the US is absolutely achievable in the near future, but will happen eventually whether the Empire wants it or not.
Yea, it’s the subsidies. The government of China funds questionably profitable companies such that they can sell their products at what would be a loss by any other company, undermining the values of competition in Europe/States.
What does China get out of it? Chinese products distributed globally running Chinese software and sensors which are beholden to the whims of the Chinese Government. They also get to weaken the economies of the target countries.
The United States does similar things with intelligence, but citizens of that country can at least condemn, research, and publish findings against it’s own government. What can a Chinese citizen do? Very little except obey.
The United States is also massively flawed when it comes to competition but at least there are theoretical methods for the citizens of that country to change things. If they can destroy the corporate plutocracy currently strangling democracy.
Being an open country has upsides and downsides certainly. The same could be said for Russia/China’s information war exploiting freedom of speech on those not educated in critical thought.
China isn’t a communist country, it’s a totalitarian country.
Characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control. Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition political parties, disregards and outlaws the political claims of individual and group opposition to the state, and controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society.
political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.
Yes, and it’s poor Americans who need a vehicle to buy groceries and get to work everyday who are getting shafted while the automakers rake in the profits. Not to mention the environmental costs of driving on fossil fuels.
Allowing China to sell these vehicles here at well below cost is only going to shaft poor Americans even further. They’re trying to do what Walmart does to small-town economies.
Chinese EV companies are rather profitable, with BYD making billions of yuan profit last year. On the other hand, Rivian is losing, what was it, just about $40,000 per car?
And that profit is coming straight from the government as there is no way they’re making billions in profit by selling brand new cars for $10k in 2024. There is zero margin there.
They have cars from $10k to $200+k. BYD includes a bunch of brands, including the Yangwang brand which builds the $150k U8 and the $230k U9. Not to mention their busses which are used around the world.
They wouldn’t only sell $10k vehicles, and they wouldn’t only target the bottom of the market. If their actions in other countries are to be repeated, they wouldn’t sell $10k vehicles in the US, because the market isn’t nearly as competitive. It’s very likely, given the prices they’re charging elsewhere, that the lowest prices we’d see for a BYD would be $20k.
BYD currently makes ~$1,500 per vehicle, compared to Ford at $3,000, and Tesla at $5,300/vehicle. They’re lower margin, certainly, but they’re not just dumping cars at bargain bin prices.
US manufacturers received 4x the subsidy that Chinese manufacturers did last year. If anyone is trying to artificially manipulate the market, it’s the place that’s blockading their competitors vehicles while pumping dozens of billions of dollars into them every year.
You would be the person complaining about Japanese cars in the 80s, to be honest, and if we listened to them, we’d all still be getting 12mpg driving V6 and V8 2 ton monstrosities that break down every 5000 miles. Many of us still do, the F-150 is the most popular car in the US after all, but the rest of us at least have the option to get high mileage, high reliability vehicles.
You give a great example because the US has no problem with shafting poor Americans if it’s American companies (i.e. big donors to American politicians) doing the shafting. At least we’d get affordable vehicles from these Chinese companies. Meanwhile the complacent American auto companies have engorged themselves on profits from overpriced vehicles, announcing record-breaking profits, and refusing to reduce prices even when supply chain issues have been worked out. This is after American auto companies sat around with their thumbs up their asses, dragging their heels on developing electric vehicles, and even working against the development of them. Now they’re claiming that demand for EVs isn’t actually all that great, but for some reason they’re afraid of Chinese EVs (probably because the Chinese are giving customers what they actually want – affordable practical EVs).
These leeches needed to be bailed out and they will forever need to be bailed out because instead of running a business that gives people what they want, they just do whatever can extract the most money out of people while squandering the profits on stock buybacks and fat bonuses for their executives. They’re considered too big to fail, but really they’re too big to exist.
You can make up dastardly schemes to explain the prices all you want but this isn’t borne out in reality. The bigger EV manufacturers here, outside of Tesla, aren’t even American companies, they’re South Korean and European and they’re all selling their vehicles for similar prices to American companies. Tesla seems to be doing pretty well with sales, which means plenty of people are willing to pay these prices.
Additionally, apart from Tesla, there are only two American auto companies, GM and Ford, so I don’t know why you think they’re controlling the entire auto industry in the US.
If I’m just making things up, then why are car prices so damn high and car companies are posting record profits? Tesla is only doing fine because it was the first big EV manufacturer to market and it’s riding on that momentum. People willing to go with the least worst option available doesn’t mean the option isn’t bad. If it was a good option, then the ones offering those options wouldn’t be afraid of the competition. Tesla cancelled development of a $25k model shortly before these tariffs would be announced. This is not a mere coincidence. They know that there is high demand for cheap EVs, but auto companies here much prefer fatter profit margins and the government is all too happy to protect those fatter profit margins.
Chinese companies focused on development of better and cheaper batteries and the result is that they’re able to offer much cheaper EVs. Why should that be punished while the other car companies get rewarded for dragging their heels on EVs due to their comfort in selling petrol cars?
I wonder if he means that in the sense of “putting you in jail is only going to empower your frankly rabid base of supporters. I need to avoid even the slightest hint of a mistrial so we can put you in prison for good.”
A jury of people selected (partly) by his own lawyers convicting him should be a lot easier of a pill to swallow for his base than a “Democrat” judge unilaterally deciding, on his own, to detain trump.
key word here is “should”
Honestly while Trumps legal team have been complaining about not being able to get a fair trial, that works both ways. I’m worried about enough MAGAts making their way onto the jury to nullify
I need to avoid even the slightest hint of a mistrial so we can put you in prison for good
I mean I’m pretty sure that’s it. There’s no chance whatsoever this doesn’t go to appeal if he’s convicted, and you don’t want the case to be overturned because the appeal court thinks the judge was biased against Trump
He knows that the rabid Republicans will try to twist it to say that he was jailed to prevent him from attending his own hearing. When they would gladly teleconference him in from the cell, like they do with other criminals. But that’s not good enough for Donald Duck. Either this Jack-o’-lantern gets to sit there and look pretty or he will scream and cry a fit until election day comes around and it’s too late.
Contempt charges are usually held in a cell in the courthouse, and they just parade you out for your trial and then put you back in the cell when it’s over. He’ll be able to do literally nothing but attend his own trial.
But if he starts acting out once they have him in cuffs, screaming about how his special mister person privileges are being violated, won’t they be putting him back in the cell?
Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.
Turns out your life is not in danger of someone is breaking into your car and it is not legal to shoot at them. I’m guessing this dipshit considers himself a responsible gun owner.
Holy shit guys, take a breath and figure out what you’re arguing about.
ME5SENGER_24’s comment was technically unclear (yes I think it reads the way they intended it to, but I can see how it could be read the other way), and (des)mosthenes thought that “Most useless bunch of assholes on planet earth’” referred to the protestors, therefore thought the comment seems like it is wishing that the cops had killed 50% of them.
ME5SENGER_24 didn’t realise that their comment could be misconstrued, so lashes out at (des)mosthenes and calls them “fucking stupid”
Now they’re both all worked up, mad at each other, and not realising they are on the same fucking side. Just… Take a moment, relax, try to see why someone might be confused, and talk it through. For fucks sake…
One thing I’ve been noticing more and more lately, is that Lemmy just seems so damn angry. Everyone is ready to fight everyone else, and they’re all way too eager to deal out their own brand of “justice” to whoever they feel has done wrong by them.
Just read some of the comments on this post and you’ll see people ready to kill the cops over this.
You're a fucking moron. He was using hyperbole to express his point. If that somehow should exclude him from the conversation in your eyes, you're the problem.
Man, forget evil for a second. Every interaction I’ve ever had with the police I’ve ever had has left me feeling the ghost busters would be more effective. Just fucking pointless
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.