it was a “military organization”, he said, that will be used for “aiding law enforcement with riots and illegal immigration”.
The whole time I was reading this, I was wondering how the fuck any of this is legal, and this passage answers my question perfectly: it's not. The constitution explicitly says that the military is never to be used for policing purposes, because the founding fathers were terrified of this exact kind of overreach happening as a result. This is the same as if the Third Amendment somehow became relevant again in modern times. That's why they branded the militia as "disaster relief," for the same reason as Fox News is branded as "entertainment" and not news media; they know this would never hold up against the law.
Businesses want access to cheap labor. With boomers retiring, American workers can finally demand higher wages. Many businesses don't want to pay it ("No oNe waNtS tO wORk aNyMOrE"). Those businesses that can't outsource to where the cheaper labor is will find another source. Illegal immigrants (which aren't always available) and kids.
Remember what drove the slave trade: the need for labor to bring in the most valuable commodity of the day - cotton. There either wasn't enough labor or the willingness to pay for it.
What we are seeing today is just another version of the same corporate greed.
I agree, but I try to be pragmatic. Everyone is looking for the twitter killer that will destroy it in a blaze of glory, but I am fine with it slowly bleeding users and value as Threads and Mastodon (and Bluesky?) get better and gains more users.
But is Meta/Facebook gaining any better? Remember, this was the company that gladly shared information with Cambridge Analytica to affect the 2016 US elections. And they’re collecting an absolutely monstrous amount of data from each Thread user.
You know what, let’s do it. These fuckers apparently need a reminder that the alternative to unions and the NLRB is sabotage, riots, bombings and murders.
You can’t violence your way into efficient human labor without repealing the 13th Amendment.
Let’s see if the SCOTUS says that the slavery clause only applies to individual people that congress specifically designates as free, a la the wholly made up rules on the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.
I’d like to agree with you, but I’d like to note that the 13th amendment of the US constitution specifically states slavery is allowed as a punishment for a crime.
So all you need to do is manufacture laws which make something common criminal and put heavy sanctions on it.
Like say… draconian drug laws around cannabis, or making abortion carry the same sentences as murder. Criminalising trans healthcare. Three strike laws in which you can sentence someone to prison for life for stealing $14.
Thats how the US subsidises labour. Enslaved prisoners.
So you can violence your way into efficient human labour without repealing the 13th amendment. Perhaps there’s a point at which it won’t work anymore, but seems to have worked fine for the past 50-70 years or so
I’d make the argument that slavery provides a higher quantity of workers, but since it’s against the workers’ wills, it is not as efficient (units of work per unit of time).
Hi @stopthatgirl7, please take a look at our sidebar (or if you can't see that, the pinned comment at the top of our magazine) for submission rules around titles. We'd appreciate it if you would put those rules into practice for future submissions. Thank you!
Often enough I hear people say that it’s good to spend that much on our military. “That way no one will mess with us.” That logic hurts my brain. We spend more than the next TEN countries combined. We could halve our budget and still have a ridiculously large military.
We argue about the cost of a stadium (rightfully), then pay them off for 25+ years, and those cost ONE billion (versus $880 billion). An annual per Capita hit of $2,200 is crazy.
Also, we don’t even use a significant portion of the equipment that we build. There are thousands of tanks just collecting dust. “But they create jobs.” Build something else. Schools, parks, trains, housing, etc.
“But they create jobs.” Build something else. Schools, parks, trains, housing, etc.
I’ll never get the jobs argument.
Our infrastructure, healthcare, education, housing and about a thousand other things are fucked and would create jobs if we pumped 100s of billions of dollars into solving them.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Problem is, the military DOES create jobs. And you missed the part where that same military budget pumps money not only into the general economy, but more so local economies. We often see these expenditures as waste, but that money comes back around. Well, after the top dogs skim their pieces.
From a regional point of view, yanking military bases around here would create a blast crater of nuclear proportions. From a personal point of view, there are plenty of high-paying IT jobs around here, all military. Yank those? Do you imagine those same people could just go work IT in an elementary school or train depot? (Disclaimer: I’m in IT, private enterprise, but I see the jobs, know how the industry works.) Sure, lots of IT is WFH, like me, but much requires boots on the ground.
So how do we dial this back? I haven’t a clue. Democrats are already perceived as weak on defense, and a Republican reformer would get primaried. You want to run for office on the promise of cutting military spending? Keep in mind, you generally have to work your way up the food chain from local -> state -> federal. Gonna tell these locals you intend to kill their livelihood?
Here’s where you say, “Put that money into sane projects like schools, parks, trains, housing, etc.!” How to you propose talking voters out of giving up a sure thing, a thing their economy and workers have been geared to for decades, for a nebulous future? FFS, we can’t get conservatives to agree that education, or any of those items, are GOOD things. Even if we ALL agreed to go for it, these things take time, and meanwhile people are unemployed.
Only thing I got is to attack it from a waste point of view. But even that tack can fail! Had a client tell me one time that every cut to the military cuts from the private troops, while the generals (and contractors!) continue to live high on the hog. Kinda hard to argue that one.
I don’t know if, or where, you work, but if I came into your hypothetical business and said, “We’re making cuts so we can have a healthier company! We’re going to invest in the future!” Do you think those cuts would come from executive pay, or would you suddenly have to requisition staples, in triplicate? Probably get laid off.
Fuck it. I’m old and cynical, but I’m open to ideas.
As a veteran of three wars who is currently on food stamps and under poverty wage because disability doesn’t pay the bills, I agree with you. I witnessed those bloated budgets throughout my career. It’s free money and it’s a way to funnel it to large corporations. The military takes that money and then “spends” it, paying large corporations for their jets and such. Jets that they don’t need. This is all a method to keep money going to the upper class. This is the machine that Eisenhower warned us about.
The only companies who survival I care about are those who pay their employees a thriving wage. Everything else can burn.
If we don’t have unlimited, untraceable budgets, how are we going to secretly overthrow governments, and instill our control? Or pay off officials to look the other way. Or bribe politicians to keep the corporate socialism for the Boeings and Raytheons of the world? Why won’t you think of the rich guys? God.
Julius Levinson in Independence Day : “You don’t actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?”
“I don’t even think the governor knows what’s going on. I don’t think this is a fly on his radar right now,” Newhouse said, noting that DeSantis is a former navy lieutenant.
"Oh I'm afraid that the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive"
The entire idea that the law is made by a judge interpreting the text rather than the intent when writing it is such bs. If a law is a problem, rewrite it, that’s why they’re called legislators!
Obviously he wants to pardon himself. Trump fancies himself to be above the law, and until now he hasn't had any meaningful consequences for his many illegal and immoral acts.
He probably also thinks once he becomes president again, executive privileges would apply and he could simply day he is withholding all those documents legally.
I'm sure he will continue to spew self-justifying lies, but that's not how any of this works. The crimes he's accused of are a slam dunk, heaps of evidence, Trump was even bragging about having the classified documents and showing them off to others to self-aggrandize and gain favor, including Kid Rock of all people.
I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem.
It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection).
THAT is the problem- and it’s an unprecedented problem. The 14th established the precedent, and no, trump IS guilty and we all know it- “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal assumption designed to ensure due process and the protection of civil liberties. It is an assumption and not a statement of fact.
I really hate people saying invoking the 14th for his insurrection is unprecedented like the act itself is the problem. It’s also unprecedented that we have a political candidate that tried to overturn the last election by force of violence (you know, an actual bonafide insurrection). ... The 14th established the precedent
That's not what's being said here, and the precedent regarding the 14th probably isn't what you're presuming. From the article I linked above:
The [14th] amendment was invoked one time in more than a century to bar someone from office
There is some historical precedent, as the amendment has been used to bar someone from office — but only once in more than a century.
In 1919, Congress used the 14th Amendment to bar Victor Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin and an elected official, from joining the House because he actively opposed the US entering World War I.
In that case, a special committee convened and concluded that Berger was unfit for office. He was then barred by a simple majority in the Senate and the House. Because of this, some believe congressional precedent shows only a simple majority is needed.
But Congress barring someone from joining its own body is notably different, Kalir said.
"To think that the US Congress could prevent someone from becoming president of the United States other than through impeachment is big — it's a big legal leap."
Berger's case was also 102 years ago, and there has been no use of this section since.
Kalir said if it were invoked today, it could be challenged in court and ultimately take years to play out.
It might be possible, but it's never been done before so it's likely to be challenged and appealed. Since Republicans have corrupted the supreme court I wouldn't hold my breath that this will work, nor do I expect majorities in both houses to uphold the law when it comes to Trump. It should certainly be attempted regardless.
Is there a chance that he could push the trial back that far? It shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Imagine he gets re-elected and pardons himself. That is going to make the election insanely stressful for everyone.
Last I read the judge overseeing the case was appointed by his disgusting self so it depends on how badly the judge cares about a) being a political puppet b) a 77 year old selfish narcissist that will drop them like a rock at the first sign of any trouble.
Judge Cannon has been shutdown by the 11th circuit over the special master she allowed... basically her bosses said what you requested goes against the constitution and she was thoroughly rebuked... imho she has already played her support for trump card and will have to cross all her t's and dot all her i's or she's done for
To be honest - no. Your workers rights and social support systems are extremely lacking. You have allowed corporations and those with wealth to control your representatives for over a century and this is where it got you.
Half the country votes for a party that is totally anti-worker because said party tells them they're pro-worker on TV... so that's not really all that surprising.
theguardian.com
Hot