The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage.
Exempting the police from gun control laws and giving them control over the permit process isn't gun control. It's just funneling arms away from the vulnerable communities that need means of self defense (and are the ones usually on the receiving end of disproportionate state violence) and giving them to the communities that oppress them.
It also doesn't make sense to then say that magazines with capacity of greater than ten rounds are not in common usage for self defense.
Presumably, a police officer should ONLY use a firearm in self defense. Unless we are just willing to say that police officers need large magazines to shoot people as punishment?
Your point is precisely why I voted against this law. Tried to argue it with some of my local friends but don’t think I changed any minds (unfortunately).
im sorry. i wish more of your neighbors cared about stories like yours and threw that ass clown out of power. i hate him and what the republican party has become.
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
I think this is the one anyway. Seems like it points to "cognitive inflexibility" rather than the interpreted version of "performs poorly," so I'm not sure if this is just the journalist stirring up shit with an inflammatory headline (oh my word how unheard of) or there's another study I couldn't find.
I agree the journalist and arguably the researchers themselves are representing these results poorly.
Participants across the studies were evaluated on their likely hood to die for the in-group or kill the outgroup. The groups in question appear to be nationality. So "Extreme ideology" is better read as "extreme nationalism" imho.
The finding is, as you said, more rigid cognition. Less lateral thinking. Not "extremists are dumb", which is a feel good line that undermines the threat of certain extremists.
I really want to give the benefit of the doubt and assume there was a followup study with the things the article brings into the discussion: liberal vs conservative thought patterns, or cognitive inflexibility correlating to poor analytical ability.
But I have no idea and wasn't invested enough to do more than google "zmigrod extremism study" honestly.
I dont get why articles would cite a study and not even put it there. I mean i get it bc i guess some ppl who do that they might be trying to lie about the study and hope no one looks but it isnt nice
The Fulton County Sheriff's office announced last week that they were working on tracking down where the threats were coming from and were coordinating with "law enforcement partners to respond quickly to any credible threat and to ensure the safety of those individuals who carried out their civic duty."
The wolves assure me they're not sure how the chickens keep disappearing.
Highly disturbing and obviously the next step in this Christian fascist bullshit - only a matter of time till they start rounding up and charging women who have EVER had an abortion with murder.
Wasn't she that like, government-employed accountant or something that refused to marry gay couples? These people are so traditional, they have a learning disability.
We don't know that a Newsom campaign could beat Trump and I think we would be foolish to assume so.
Generally, if the VP doesn't win the nomination, the party doesn't stand a very good chance of winning the election. I think if Biden didn't run and Harris did not get the nomination (I think Newsom would slaughter her), Trump takes 2024 fairly decisively.
I think the democratic party's best path forward is an uncontested Biden/Harris reelection, and then instead of running in 2028, Harris decides to retire.
I agree with this but I just don't think it's realistic that Harris slinks away in 2028. I don't see her as power hungry per se, but I do see her really enjoying being "the first" especially as it pertains to race and gender. She will not accept anything short of the Dem Convention nomination after a second VP term.
Except next time it'll just be someone worse than trump, so we'll have to support Harris as she's the best candidate to defeat whomever. That's how it always is with the dems. "Vote for us now and we'll totally be able to fix things in the future!". Then they never do. I'm not a republican voter, but I'm on the fence about Biden again. I'd rather "throw my vote away" by voting 3rd party than succumb to corpo dems. Hell Biden said he would forgive the loans, but he was the one who helped make it so you can't declare bankruptcy on said loans in the first place. Not to mention the dems not holding their ground in the capitol and allowing more and more bullshit through. Enough is enough.
I think most everyone wants and accepts the needs for law and order. That being said - I think it's fair to have skepticism for those shouting for law and order solely to protect their status-quo -> a system rigged to benefit the few and of privilege.
Yup. It's the same affect as with a lot of other things. Like when I see someone say "Think of the children." Sounds great, and we should be thinking of the children. But I usually don't see it used by people who want to actually protect children.
That's the problem, the only people shouting for law and order are the right wing authoritarians.
The left has giving up on poor communities, they have no plan. This is also why people in such communities have stopped voting. No one really addresses the issue they have. Many times it's simply a few thugs, that should go to jail, everyone knows who they are, they terrorize a neighborhood , and never seem to get busted.
The left speaks of police reform, but gives no examples of how to accomplish it.
This is what Zizek is talking about, currently law and order is only used to protect the statue quo of right wing people, because the left has given up and is too scared to use the police force.
Take the example of loud cars and motorcycles. It's typically right wing people that drive such cars. The police don't bother to do anything because the police sympathize with them. It would be nice if a left wing candidate said we are going to put funding to hire extra police, to confiscate all the loud cars and motorcycles bothering the good average people of the city. But, the left wing politicians are too scared to use such power.
Politics
Top