spaceghoti @ spaceghoti @lemmy.one

Posts

651

Comments

783

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Because it accurately represents the world they want us all to live in.

Which then brings us back to how every other country that has tried it has obviously failed. Because obviously, numbers don't scale.

But please, continue to blow more smoke over the issue. Tell us again how we've done nothing, and we're all out of ideas.

So what you're saying is that we can't simply ban a single weapon type, we need to ban them all in order to effectively end mass shootings in the US.

Okay! I'm on board with that, if that's what it takes.

The real thesis of the article, though, was that the project was basically weaponizing gory photos of children to absolutely no avail; it woiuld be all suffering, no relief. I don’t think the author isn’t saying not to discuss gun control…just that this particular avenue was never going to be effective.

I agree, that's my takeaway from the article as well.

I know that “just ban them” seems like a good option from the outside, but this is not an issue we can address via legislation alone.

Right? I mean, it's not like anyone else has tried banning guns through legislation and succeeded.

It's not like they're being given any other choices.

So I guess that makes the trauma all right, then?

Damn you. Take your upvote and get out. 😆

I mean, if people are going to criticize Biden for misspeaking and being old, it's fair to apply that same standard to Trump. The signs of cognitive decline in the latter are hard to ignore unless you're really determined to not see it.

It can't die fast enough.

Folks, it's important to remember that Tuberville isn't just being an ass about abortion. He's using that as cover. This is in preparation for Project 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/07/tommy-tuberville-trump-military-holds

The Heritage Foundation – which has produced a blueprint for a Trump second term, the 2025 Transition Project, which includes firing the entire federal civil service and replacing it with Trump loyalists, and invoking the Insurrection Act on day one of Trump II to deploy the military against political dissidents – has evidently been behind Tuberville’s attack on the military. It circulated a letter of several far-right ex-military figures to Senate leaders demanding that they “Support Senator Tuberville’s Fight Against Woke Military”, which they denounced for “advancing the leftwing social agenda”.

Heritage published an article by one of its fellows claiming that Tuberville is the “one man” standing in the way of a dastardly conspiracy led by Biden: “Replacing the officer class of police and military ranks with politicized ideologues who will bend to a transformative dogma is a strategy that has worked in places like the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela … Tuberville, thus, is stopping the promotion of woke apparatchiks.” Like Trump, the Heritage cadres project their own scheme on to their enemies.

[Emphasis mine]

Second, if he is running for senator, he isn’t running as a spoiler 3rd party candidate for president.

FTA:

Still, even Democrats who belatedly accept that Manchin was never going to help them hang on to the Senate now worry about Manchin throwing his jawline into the presidential race as a third-party candidate—perhaps with the “No Labels” party, perhaps as a running mate to Mitt Romney—and hurting Biden’s reelection chances that way. I am not concerned. If anything, Manchin’s candidacy would be more likely to take votes from Trump than Biden. There just isn’t a lot of data to suggest that there are Republicans who are willing to vote for Biden because of Trump’s unique threat to democracy but would throw their democracy-saving vote away on a third-party candidate. And the kind of Democrats who hate Trump but also hate Biden are generally on the more progressive end of the spectrum and hate Manchin most of all. Moreover, there is simply no evidence that Manchin is well positioned to appeal to any distinct block of third-party voters. The myth of Manchin as some kind of independent iconoclast has always been more powerful than the objective reality of Manchin: a coal lobbyist nobody trusts who lives on a houseboat.

So even then, he's likely to hurt Trump more than Biden as a political spoiler.

I'm sure that was totally unintentional, of course.

Well, I consider it a "high crime." The wording in the Fourteenth Amendment differs, but only in that it's specific in which high crimes it's talking about.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It's an interpretation of the Constitution written explicitly to keep out people who committed high crimes against the US government. The venue is the state of Colorado because of how the state gets to run its own elections, but the interpretation will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. After it goes through appeals.

The author acknowledges that. They're addressing the uninformed voters who aren't watching news or politics closely.

Correct. It's about the concerns lawmakers have with Apple shutting down Jon's show because of his criticism against China and how that conflicts with their priorities. So authorities want some assurances that China is not having an undue influence over Apple's policies.

Source?

🙄 🙃

The Biden campaign already noticed.