TechyDad @ TechyDad @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,018

Joined

2 yr. ago

I will say that I've recently seen some pretty bad anti-semitism coming from some on the left. And, no, I don't think any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. I criticize Israel plenty myself. However, I've seen far too many on the left who blame all Jews for things Israel does. As an American Jew, I can no more change Israel's actions than I can change Russia's due to my ancestors coming from that area.

Of course, Cruz isn't one to talk because for all the anti-semitism I've seen on the left, I've seen much, MUCH more on the right. The right has actual Nazis flying swastika flags. They have Christian Nationalists that want me to (at best) be a second class citizen. They have white supremacist groups who only hold back on hunting Jews because they know it will get them in trouble - right now.

There's an anti-semitism problem on both sides of the aisle, but the problem on the right is far larger.

The third and fourth point are what Trump wants. He doesn't care about losing the case. As long as he gets elected President in 2024, he can pardon himself, take over the DOJ, and have all his political enemies arrested. If a judge says that his self pardon is unconstitutional, they get added to the political enemies list, arrested, and replaced with a new judge that says it's perfectly fine.

Trump wants to have clips that he can play to rile up his base. Suppose a judge says "The defendant, Mr. Trump, has said that there's a conspiracy against him and that I'm in this conspiracy." Trump would release a video of the judge saying "... There's a conspiracy against... Mr. Trump... I'm in this conspiracy..."

Trump's base would then either elect him President or, if he loses, commit acts of violence in Trump's name in the hopes that this will get him appointed President.

She's actually pretty smart. The problem is that she's an opportunity seeker and a grifter. She'll take any position if it advances her political aspirations. If she thought that being a socialist was the key to political power, she'd suddenly be yelling "defund the police," "tax the rich," and be advocating to protect the environment.

Of course, socialism isn't where she sees her political power coming from so she's full blown MAGA - until MAGA falls out of favor and then she'll be 100% on board with the next big thing.

I live near, but not in Elise Stefanik's district. That means I get subjected to her horrible political ads, but can't actually vote against her. (But at least she doesn't represent me in Congress.)

I hope, one day, her district kicks her out so I can stop seeing her ads every few years. Sadly, her district is pretty red so I doubt she'll be kicked to the curb anytime soon.

Or maybe after his proof that Obama was really born outside of America.

Is this the super secret evidence that he couldn't show in the 60+ lawsuits? Did he accidentally file it with the super secret evidence that Obama really wasn't born in America? Will that be released also? Perhaps in two weeks?

I'm Jewish and, as such, not an expert on Jesus. Still, from what I know of him, Biblical Jesus was a fan of free healthcare (he healed the sick without charging them), feeding the hungry, and hanging out with the poor/not the rich.

If Biblical Jesus were to appear right now, he'd be regarded as a socialist. A brown skinned, Jewish, immigrant socialist to boot. Definitely, not the Republicans' favorite combination.The only reason he'd walk into a Republican conference would be to flip some tables over.

Part of the problem is the First Past The Post system. Any third party will just bleed votes away from the closest major party. In the case of a party dedicated to protecting the environment, this means votes taken from the Democrats. If the third party grows too powerful, they will split too many votes with the Democrats and Republicans will take control. And once that happens, the environment will be trashed. (Well, trashed even more than it already has been.)

If we switched to Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting, you could vote for a third party and still pick a major party candidate as your fallback position. So you could theoretically vote for Jill Stein (ignoring all the other problems with her) and vote for Biden as your second pick (or third or fourth). When Stein failed to get enough votes, your vote won't be wasted, but would revert to a different choice.

In fact, while the 1% of the luckiest Americans have a combined net worth of $ 34.2 trillion, the poorest 50%, about 165 million people, own only $ 2.08 trillion, or the 1.9% of the total wealth accumulated by Americans.

To do the math, this means that the average American in the poorest 50% has $12,600. Meanwhile, the average 1%-er has over $10 million.

But all the Republicans have is performative garbage.

And this is definitely performative. The salary change would need to go through the Senate and there's no way this passes. The House Republicans know this. They just want to "own the libz" by saying they'll reduce some salaries to $1.

It's easier than actually doing work.

And don't forget the "life of the mother" exceptions in places like Texas that can only be triggered if the woman is actively dying. If she's not close enough to death, it is still "carry it to term or else."

I've always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.

Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I'm sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)

Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women's lives in danger.

If Republicans were a healthy political party, they'd drop abortion and the LGBTQ stuff. They'd focus on "we need to be fiscally responsible" and "protect people's rights." They might get more traction with this.

But they aren't a healthy political party. Instead of changing to suit the voters. They'll demand that the voters change to suit the Republican party.

2 up votes and 101 down votes.

This is a time when emoji would have made it clearer:

⬆️2 ⬇️101

Greene's takeaway was literally "we're losing because we're not extreme enough on abortion.'

I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.

Then, they'll wonder why they are losing even worse!

"Step 1, I hop into the dragon's mouth. Step 2, ???. Step 3, the dragon dies and I emerge victorious! There are no holes in this plan at all!"

Technically speaking, yes. Trump could be sent to prison tomorrow and still be elected President. There isn't any "the President can't be currently incarcerated" requirement. (Likely because the founding fathers thought it was self evident that a criminal shouldn't be elected President.)

As for how it would work, nobody knows. It's never happened. Would he get to go to the White House for 4 years and then have to return to prison to serve the rest of his sentence? (Assuming here that he couldn't just pardon himself.) Would he need to conduct presidential business from the Square Cell instead of the Oval Office? Would a SCIF need to be set up in the prison so that Trump could review classified materials from his cell?

We would be in totally uncharted territory if this happened.

Which makes "Go Woke, Go Broke" that much more laughable. If "going woke" was so unprofitable, no major corporation would be "woke." If being "anti-woke" was profitable, Target would stock anti-Trans clothing, Disney would have movies where the only LGBTQ characters are the villains, and all movies would only feature straight, white, Christian men as the leads perhaps with a "dumb but sexy blonde" love interest.

And Disney didn't even strongly oppose DeSantis. It was a wishy-washy sort of opposition and DeSantis responded to it with a "I'm going to destroy Disney!"

Yeah, right. People can have their quarrels with how Disney operates, but you can't deny that Disney is a powerhouse. You do NOT want to get on their legal team's bad side unless your case is VERY good.

Have you ever been to Disney World? I've been there quite a few times. Packing up and leaving wouldn't be easy at all.

First of all, Disney World is huge. It's 43 square miles or over 27,500 acres. Disney would need to find an equivalent sized area in a state that wouldn't threaten to turn "MAGA Red" and that would have decent weather year round (i.e. no massive snow storms). It would also need to have a major airport nearby.

Next, Disney would need to rebuild all the infrastructure: roads, bridges, drainage systems, etc. They would need to rebuild all of the parks which would be a monumental effort itself. There are tunnels in Magic Kingdom that are used for employees. These would need to be rebuilt. Restaurants, hotels, and shops would need to be built. Employees would need to be relocated (or new employees hired). Animals would need to be transported from Animal Kingdom to the new park.

And while all this was going on, Disney World would need to keep operating. Building a New Disney World could easily take a decade even if everything went smoothly. Disney couldn't afford to just shut down Disney World for 10 years.

It would cost Disney a lot less money to just beef up their already impressive legal team and donate to politicians likely to take a friendlier stance towards Disney. Disney could likely fund every Democratic politician in Florida from dog catcher to governor and still spend less than if they rebuilt Disney World.

(This isn't to say that I'm a fan of companies buying favorable politicians. Just that it makes more financial sense for Disney to do this rather than rebuild.)