Your initial point was that no one here should criticize the United States/Biden because we aren't in those meetings. Now your point is that anyone who pushes back against you will be blocked. I'm not sure what you're looking for
So your point is that no one should criticize the United State despite the truth being ambiguous. Makes sense.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with why the International Court Justice ruled that Israel was plausibly committing a genocide. Perhaps that would clear some things up for you
Try these then, the first video is short. Finkelstein is an expert on this issue, and his family was exterminated in the holocaust, except for his parents
I genuinely don't know what we're supposed to do. We can't all move to Denmark. So whats the solution? Fight and die in some sort of revolution that will never come?
They believe they should be able to do whatever they want, and the law should protect them. They make small government or large government arguments as necessary to achieve that goal. There is no integrity here, so we shouldn't look for it. And we shouldn't act like pointing out their hypocrisy is productive or will persuade them - they're aware of their contradictions and they don't care
Yes, but they are correct. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug at the federal level, same as heroin.
There is nothing legally preventing the federal government from arresting everyone in every state who possesses or sells cannabis. It isn't relevant that cannabis is legal recreationally or medically at the state level in most of the country
We're just hoping that the federal government continues its discretionary policy of looking the other way. But, much like Roe, uncodified rights have a recent habit of disappearing overnight
He's saving them from the violent generational "iniquity" described in Commandment 2
Or at least would be if he believed in this himself. More likely that he just opposes any "disrespectful" nonadherence to tradition and normalized hierarchy. Which is dumb in an even worse way
It imposes a new financial and bureaucratic penalty on all who wish to exercise their fundamental right of self-defense in any area that is not their home. The text of the 2nd amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall be conditioned on compliance with everchanging insurance requirements. It says that it shall not be infringed.
I agree with your point. But our opinions don't matter. There are 6 people on SCOTUS right now who will see this differently than us, and, ultimately, their opinions are the only ones that matter. And their opinions are not subject to appeal or oversight - they are absolute in matters of Constitutional interpretation.
We have a terrible system that is in need of drastic reform
The Constitution is out of whack. But there is no express right to automobile travel contained therein; there is, however, an express right to firearm possession.
Formally amending the Constitutional is not possible given current political realities. The formal amendment process requires too high of a threshold than could ever be met in 2024
The easier way to amend the Constitution is through the informal process known as "stacking the Supreme Court with people who agree with your desired outcomes." Republicans are very good at this.
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."
Based on that, the answer to your question is Yes. Not only are there two Commandments specifically about this, but it's the very first and second ones.
Unless we're arguing that Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments because Jesus created a new covenant. But most American Christians don't seem to agree with that based on their interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don't have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it's narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
If Trump is not the nominee, or if he is judicially removed from the ballot, then he will still run as a write-in candidate.
And even if he doesn't run a write-in campaign, plenty of his supporters will write him in anyway
And even if he would get struck by lightning and pass away prior to November, his supporters would likely just write in Don Jr or Vivek or someone similar.
Under no circumstances is Nikki Haley ever getting even 80% of Trump supporters to vote for her in November. And if she can't get that, then there is no way she can beat Biden. A Nikki Haley victory in 2024 is not plausible
She gets intelligence briefings and does not interact with normal people. So I'm sure that genuinely colors her perception of reality on this matter. Plus she's old and has never lived in a time where Americans oppose Israel to this extent - so of course she thinks it's all astroturfed rather than being genuine
Doesn't excuse her behavior, obviously. But there is a plausible explanation for it aside from her being evil (which she is, but other factors are also at play here)
Your initial point was that no one here should criticize the United States/Biden because we aren't in those meetings. Now your point is that anyone who pushes back against you will be blocked. I'm not sure what you're looking for