fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News'. He's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

If only we knew Trump would do something like this...

https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/

That does not answer my question.

Should we accept that the threat of violence get in the way of justice?

I'm a little confused... Did you read it?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case

Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.

There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.

Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.

As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.

Can you describe how preventing trump, who participated in an insurrection, from holding office is fascist?

Of course they won't, but damn they should.

Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.

Which makes no mention of confining it to religion, it supports exactly what I've said.

Who does the definition cover?

The definition applies whether Jewish identity is understood as ethnic, biological, religious, cultural, etc. It also applies in cases where a non-Jewish person or institution is either mistaken for being Jewish (“discrimination by perception”) or targeted on account of a connection to Jews (“discrimination by association”).

Thank you for confirming that, and no, I've said nothing about how the us definition is terrible.

The article and mayor are objectively correct in denouncing the antisemitism. Those are the facts, and that's it. To suggest the article or mayor is lying to further your argument is misinformation.

I will not entertain any further argument from you in this regard. The facts are against you.

Afterwards, youths on scooters and on foot crisscrossed the city in search of Israeli fans, punching and kicking them and then fleeing quickly to evade police, Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said.

In Telegram groups, she added, “there is talk of people going on a Jew hunt. That is so shocking and so despicable that I still cannot fathom it.”

Antisemitism. End of discussion. There is no argument that makes this ok. I refuse to engage with anyone furthering the idea that there's any good reason to physically attack these people. Additionally, it is objectively false that antisemitism is confined to attacking religious people for their religion. That is a lie, and it is insanely dangerous to further that sentiment.

https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

Have a good day!

Which gives the attackers license to be physically violent against those they disagree with?

Odd double standard.

https://apnews.com/article/maccabi-tel-aviv-amsterdam-violence-protests-palestinian-bcea212281f682098c4c77ef552af5f1

Israeli fans were assaulted after a soccer game in Amsterdam by hordes of young people apparently riled up by calls on social media to target Jewish people, Dutch authorities said Friday. Five people were treated for injuries at hospitals and dozens were arrested.

Tensions had been mounting in the Dutch capital over Israel’s campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, even before Thursday night’s Europa League match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. Amsterdam authorities banned a planned pro-Palestinian demonstration near the stadium, and video showed a large crowd of Israeli fans chanting anti-Arab slogans en route to the game.

Afterwards, youths on scooters and on foot crisscrossed the city in search of Israeli fans, punching and kicking them and then fleeing quickly to evade police, Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema said.

In Telegram groups, she added, “there is talk of people going on a Jew hunt. That is so shocking and so despicable that I still cannot fathom it.”

The alternative was apparently not inspiring enough to vote for (/s). You know, someone who isn't that.

(I voted gladly for Harris)

I will not advocate for violence or recommend people take to the streets armed, because that is exactly the kind of situation Trump would exploit to run them over with a truck in an official act of assholery.

Russia wants a civil war. They want people scared and angry. They want people taking to the streets armed. Don't fall into this trap - the propaganda machine is going strong, even here on Lemmy.

The article was posted on the 5th prior to the election being called.

Actually you do :) that's sometimes what life is like, getting better bit by bit, and not getting everything you want. Now we're in trouble, and the blame is on those who didn't vote to avoid this outcome.

Maybe Democrats should run a DJ for president next election to hype people up since policy isn't a motivating factor when comparing the two candidates.

And this is a situation I blame voters for. I was personally enthused to defend my country against a fascist authoritarian.

I did my part.

Thank you for agreeing with my premise, that Harris and Trump policies were not compared against each other when votes were cast. I seem to very succinctly understand the issue, and you have validated what I've said.

Harris wins on policy when compared to Trump. Harris loses on policy when compared to ideals. And when posed with a decision between the two, I just wish voters realized this.

I do not, in any way, blame Harris for being better than Trump by orders of magnitude.

I think these voters, wherever they land on the Democratic spectrum, need to be hurt before they realize that life is about compromise (I'm not advocating for violence). And they will be hurt, along with others, directly by their actions because an unhinged Trump is going to bring it. My only hope is that by some grace of the universe (and incapability of Republicans to function) they can't enact every policy they outline in project 2025 before Democrats get a chance at the midterms, and provide some sort of guard rail against this insanity.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist..."

All of this proves that Harris was better on policy by every metric compared to Trump. In a policy vs policy showdown, Harris wins, and thank you for confirming that with the short list you provided.

Listing policies that a Harris admin would perform better on compared to whatever lies Trump peddled does not further the idea that Harris was lacking in policy. It reinforces my points that they are not compared against each other. To say she was unpopular for her stance on the economy or Israel or whatever does not compare her to Trump, he would do worse. It compares her to ideals. Like I've been saying.