grte @ grte @lemmy.ca

Posts

1,203

Comments

923

Joined

2 yr. ago

The weird thing works because it elicits them to defend themselves and, because their beliefs are in fact weird as hell, they do so in the most awkward ways. Turning off normies who might have some reactionary sympathy but are on the fence. Calling them slurs or just mean things isn't going to work in the same way. It's not like no one has ever called them cowards or assholes before.

No way that wasn't intentional. They could have off centred it even just a bit to ruin the effect if they wanted.

Sure thing.

Factually incorrect. In 2022, about 40.26 percent of all family households in the United States had their own children under age 18 living in the household. To be clear, when I say “children”, I mean by age too, I’m not concerned about giving 80 yr-olds with 50yr-old children more voting power.

Your assertion was that, "Parents have a greater stake in our nations future". Do people suddenly stop caring about the future when their children move out? Perhaps you don't think parents of adult children should have extra votes but you suggested that they care more about the future and the totality of people who have children is still greater than those who do not, putting that class in the driver's seat.

talking like this just tells me you’re unserious about this conversation. I have no further desire to engage with you

More like your stances are weak and unsupportable and you want an easy exit.

A) Having children is by far more common than not having children. If sperm donors/receivers are so much more fundamentally concerned with the future how did they let the climate issue become a crisis? You all have been in the driver's seat and you fucked it up.

B) I have likely another ~40ish years left on this Earth. Towards the end of that time there's a good chance I'm going to be reliant on people your children's age for, at the very least, medical care and possibly other elder care depending on how my health turns out. That being the case, I'm quite invested in the next generation being well qualified to provide that, thanks.

C) Thinking that people will only care about how things turn out for future generations if they have children of their own to care about is telling on yourself pretty hard. Kind of the same energy as people who think everyone would rape and pillage if they didn't have a fear of God keeping them in check.

Zero percent chance they don't think the family patriarch (or divorced patriarch as the case may be) ought to be the one casting their children's votes.

Biden’s proposals also includes an enforceable code of ethics to address corruption on the bench.

From the article:

The president also called for stricter, enforceable rules on conduct which would require justices to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial interest.

If they aren't being removed and imprisoned for the kind of activity we see from, say, justice Thomas then the code of ethics isn't strict enough.

and as Carrolade mentions, Congress can impeach and remove judges.

How many times has that happened in history? If the standard is set such that enforcement is practically impossible to reach, then the rules supposedly being enforced practically don't exist.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/momala-country-drew-barrymore-tells-123459808.html

Okay, but it's not being prevented at all. The current system incentivizes corruption because, clearly, it is practically impossible to do anything about justices who have succumbed to that corruption. So within the context of an environment where billionaires can dump limitless money on a justice and the constituents of that justice can do nothing at all to recall them or even really reprimand them in any way, how is that not asking for corruption to happen?

Yeah, so the lifetime appointment thing is true right now and it turns out enables corruption. Perhaps the original justifications behind lifetime appointments were just, in fact, bad?

It's not that he thought Vance was better. It's that he thought Biden was running such a weak campaign that it didn't matter who he picked as VP and he wanted the Thiel connection (and money) that Vance brings.

You've had it too easy thus far, frankly, blaming this son of your city on an entirely different country. It's not slander if it's the truth.

Steven Crowder was born in Detroit! Stop the slander!

Murdoch trying to unlock primogeniture before he kicks it.

The USSC has total editorial control over the US constitution and zero accountability. If they had it on their mind to mess with the election they can do so regardless of what happens here.

Great news. I use this site far more than I used Netflix before I cancelled that service so I consider a monthly donation money well spent.

The US is a representative democracy. Republic just means no monarch, so sure, it's that, but that doesn't actually say much about how it's government functions. It's governmental functions are carried out by representatives voted on in elections, thus democracy.

Post debate polls have had Harris up on Biden in swing states. Could she win? Maybe, maybe not. But it looks like she'd at least lose less badly than Biden. His debate performance was a death blow.

JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, perhaps Gavin Newsom. Even Kamala Harris would have a better chance than Biden. Next to no one is voting Democratic because of Biden, people are voting against Trump. You could swap in literally anyone who isn't 90% corpse and get at least as good a result, and almost certainly better. This idea that people would be turned off the Democrats because Joe Biden wasn't the candidate is a joke and I don't understand why anyone would be under the impression.

Thanks for the notice and also for keeping this whole enterprise functional.