Sincere question: does this statistic represent the sentiment that they A. like that Trump is a security risk to national interests or B. see this indictment as further proof that he's actually the messiah who was close to unearthing JKF Jr and QAnon stuff, so clearly he was thisclose to draining the swamp?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: what is the role that Oppositional Defiance Disorder is playing into such a huge number of people??
They believe the trial is nothing but his political enemies, the dems/libs/antifa/blm/Mexicans/commies/satanists/whatever, trying to drag him down for bullshit reasons, so they just have to support him harder.
Oooo I love learning a term that perfectly describes something I previously couldn’t!!
ETA: Oh my.
Oppositional defiant disorder (Also called: ODD).
A disorder in a child marked by defiant and disobedient behavior to authority figures.
Bruh, “in a child”? These are full grown adults!
Some children with ODD outgrow the condition by age eight or nine. But about half of them continue to experience symptoms of ODD through adulthood. People with ODD report feeling angry all of the time, and about 40 percent of them become progressively worse and develop antisocial personality disorder.
Wow. WOW. So many things in the world just made so much more sense to me in the last 5 minutes. Holy shit.
I used to live in a house with a lot of drifters. There was a young woman (24 years old) that I roomed with who, when she would go out for the day and I would say, "Have a great day!" she would snarl back, "Don't tell me what to do!"
I teach a student with ODD. It’s weird - he likes my class and can easily do the work, but he wants to spend the first 5-10 minutes giving me shit about how it’s stupid and “why do I have to do this?” If you respond to any of the comments, he will get in a full blown argument with you on why he should not have to do the work. It’s like he just likes arguing.
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.
Better title is Republicans are working to kill democracy by using corrupt right wing Supreme Court.
I agree Biden should pack the court to get average citizens to respect the Supreme Court again. Because the rulings the current court are making are not what the majority of us want.
Don't vote for Republicans, they don't care about our democracy.
In this climate I don’t see how Biden could pack the court. It would never clear the senate. Even though on paper Democrats are in control it is only on paper and not real life.
The rulings the court makes should be based on law not opinion, even if it is popular opinion. That being said accepting bribes from people that you are ruling on their cases and making rulings on made up stuff doesn’t really smell lawful. Those bribes would get anyone fired in corporate America but seems AOK for this banana court.
This court will go down in the history books (in some states, I’m sure FL won’t allow it) as the worst court session yet. Roberts will be known for a enabler of the illegitimacy of this court. Roberts response instead of leading is don’t say bad things about us you might hurt our feelings. He seems concerned about the image but isn’t doing a thing about it.
The best thing I can think of is vote out the party of hate, greed and power and see what we can do after the elections.
Biden was asked in the 2020 Primary about packing the court and he said "no". Unless I'm remembering this wrong and I don't think I am. And it looks like Biden will be our choice again for the election, so I don't see this changing, unless he says he NOW would pack the court.
I'm for packing the court. Only other way is impeachment.
I would assume that Biden said that because he knows it is not practical and would be a waste of his limited time and political power.
Obama made a similar compromise in not pushing for single payer but instead focusing on the compromise that became the ACA. He used basically all of his first term to get that passed, and while it may not have gone far enough for a lot of progressives--including myself--I sure am glad we have that instead of nothing!
And it has to clear the house as well which definitely won't happen before 2025. I wish people understood the current limitations of the presidency and paying laws in general.
Because the rulings the current court are making are not what the majority of us want.
The job of SCOTUS is not to rule based on what the “majority” of people want. It’s to check the constitutionality of the policies and laws passed by the other 2 branches.
They aren't doing that either. Just last week they released back to back completely contradictory rulings, one of them allowing businesses to use intrinsic characteristics to decide that they don't have to make a cake for you, but somehow, that's not ok when another business (colleges) does it.
They've decided that the pure fantasy of a religion is the most important characteristic a US citizen can possess.
Fuck impeachment, they are frauds & half of them should be incarcerated for taking bribes.
To start, your confusing the cake case with the one from last week that had to do with a website for gay marriage (cake happened years ago). In both, they ruled that the 1st amendment rights of free expression and freedom of religion supersedes state nondiscriminatory laws.
For the record, I’m completely opposed to the rulings. But what you claim to be “pure fantasy of religion” is not something a large portion of the population would not agree with as they believe is some sort of faith, and the right to believe that faith is something that is protected by our 1st amendment whether you like it or not. I mean, it’s something that makes our country great is it not?
In regards to affirmative action, it was bound to be overturned due to its own discriminatory nature. Are there massive discrepancies in access to quality education, funding, wealth, and opportunities on a socio-economic and racial basis that is widespread all throughout society? Of course! But affirmative action is NOT the answer or solution to this, again due to its own discriminatory nature (and therefore, unconstitutional).
The whole bribery thing with Roberts and Thomas is a separate issue, and there needs to be severe consequences for such actions. Does SCOTUS have massive problems currently? Yes! But the faster we realize that it was meant to be a non-partisan institution with the sole purpose of interpreting the constitution and not ruling based on what the majority of people want, the faster we’ll realize that the institution is currently broken and we need to be very careful with what solutions are implemented (and no, packing the court is not a solution. It’ll make the whole situation exponentially worse)
At the time, the state senator falsely claimed that an “African American Confederate soldier” had designed the flag. “I can only imagine how proud he was that his art, his flag design was chosen to represent our State and now we want to strip him of his pride, his hard work. I’m sure he put a lot of thought into this design,” Chism wrote in a June 2020 Facebook post.
In fact, a white supremacist lawmaker, Sen. Edward N. Scudder of Issaquena County, designed the 1894 flag. In a 1924 speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, his daughter Fayssoux Scudder Corneil explained his motives for designing the flag: “My father loved the memory of the valor and courage of those brave men who wore the gray … and has always taken keen interest in the reunions where he could meet and mingle with those of the Lost Cause. He told me that it was a simple matter for him to design the flag because he wanted to perpetuate in a legal and lasting way that dear battle flag under which so many of our people had so gloriously fought.”
Mississippi entered the Civil War in an effort to protect the institution of slavery, as the the state’s Declaration of Secession explains. Chism’s county, Union County, was formed in 1870—the same year Mississippi was readmitted to the Union.
Is this a common white nationalist conspiracy theory, that a black man designed the flag? First I ever heard of it, and I'll feel very differently about her if this was simple bullshit or if it's her buying into some kind of Nazi propaganda. I have different contempt organs for liars and cultists.
It's... hard to really interpret what the intent is of it. Are they trying to "trick" progressives into thinking the flag isn't a celebration of a bygone rebellion-with-intent-to-keep-black-people-as-property? Even if a black person had made it, it would not change the need to abolish it and cast out all who love it from civil society It has deep, unquestionable symbolic meaning as an celebration of unjust rebellion and racism.
And ALSO, she's wiping out a piece of "white history" in the process. Very weird thing for a white supremacist to be doing.
I have to just assume that Kathy Chism's really, really gullible and parrots random factoids she hears credulously and without critical thinking. Which is definitely closest to the truth, but man. It's just so much dumber than I expect even from a Nazi.
If I'm not mistaken, Trump was given very clear orders from the bench not to run his mouth online to disparage any members of the jury, interact with them, or intimidate them. This situation is that Brooklyn 99 meme of Holt saying, "Why did you start intimidating the jury? I specifically requested that you don't."
He knows these judges wouldn't dare hold him in contempt; it would only feed his persecution complex (and his base's) and leave him better off somehow.
Now he just needs to find a ghostwriter to write his story, because I know he won't do it himself, there's actually a chance he's not literate enough to do it himself, but when he does he should definitely call it "my struggle"
And with that $1 donation, you will be on every campaign email donation list for the Republicans from now until the end of time. Word to the wise: If you ever give your email address to a campaign fund (republican, democrat or otherwise), make sure its an email you don't care about or can shut down. No matter how many times you unsubscribe, they just sell your list to the next campaign and use a slightly different name/email/organization to get around spam laws. I made the mistake of donating to a campaign once. Their overzealous and borderline illegal email marketing is what has made me decide to never donate again.
While this $20 for $1 might sound good, especially in the humorous context of taking that $20 gift card and donating it to an opponent, I'm not willing to give my info to a republican campaign and assume they're going to do the right thing and only use it for campaign related activities. Next thing you know, my name will be on the next FCC astroturf campaign about how I hate net neutrality.
This is why I now have my own domain. Do a catch all and I can create any address I want at any time and then just throw it away if it won’t stop spamming me. Also helps to ID those that sold my info. Or use Anonaddy ( anonaddy.com ). I use it with Bitwarden.
The only email I've ever had issues unsubscribing from is Marco's surprisingly. Even it stopped eventually...
Tell recipients how to opt out of receiving future email from you. Your message must include a clear and conspicuous explanation of how the recipient can opt out of getting email from you in the future. Craft the notice in a way that’s easy for an ordinary person to recognize, read, and understand. Creative use of type size, color, and location can improve clarity. Give a return email address or another easy Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice to you. You may create a menu to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to stop all commercial messages from you. Make sure your spam filter doesn’t block these opt-out requests.
The issue isn't unsubscribing itself, it's how they sell / have sold your information. I can unsubscribe, but the next campaign that buys that list from whatever sources they sold it to is just gonna start sending me crap again.
With Gmail you can add +whatever to your name, and then set a rule to automatically delete those. [email protected] works exactly like [email protected]
Republicans need every vote they can get our else even their cheating won't work. He literally can't afford to alienate the people who threatened his life.
So much so that he'll set aside the ethic and moral standards he and all those "God-fearing, law-abiding, patriotic people in this country" profess to uphold.
A reasonable person with even a shred of self respect would simply choose not to run in such a situation. But then, if he was reasonable and had any self respect, he wouldn’t have chosen to be Trump’s VP in the first place.
Mrrrm, I think we’ve all felt this or similar sentiments about many categories of convict, and especially those guilty of violent crimes, but I don’t have enough faith in the system to back the idea of a label in perpetuity by default. We can look into each other’s backgrounds if we’re so inclined, but otherwise I’d prefer for convicted offenders who have served their sentence to feel they can be contributors to society, and not to remain mired in the anti-social, dangerous paradigm from whence their bad behaviour emerged. These aren’t people who set out with a sense of boundaries or harm or why it is bad to rape. If we can’t stop them before the fact, we have a duty to encourage them to learn these things after the fact.
While these groups are the culprit during this round, the entirely of the US government and the post secondary educational system is truly to blame. Universities have been peddling an overpriced ware to under informed children and their parents for decades. Terrifying then with the fear of losing ground in middle America while offering a product with ever decreasing value for ever increasing cost, partly because of student loans. The government has then enabled greater and greater burden upon these children and their parents by allowing special loans to groups who should never have had them, by protecting those loans from bankruptcy and by making $$ from baking interest as these groups struggled to pay. It’s a travesty. It should never have happened. Education should be free for all.
Politics
Hot