This is good news, but I worry that folks on the left might be lulled into a false sense of security. We won't be done fixing Trump and MAGA's mess for years to come and we'll need every last vote and any help that can be given. I really believe complacency got us here and it will destroy this country if we let it.
Complacency is a real threat. Everyone needs to vote to remove republicans. They want to change the rules so they can always win. If enough Trump supporters were in the right places of power last election, we'd have lost our democracy.
Trump is a liar. But he is running a cult of fanatics. Ironically Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and he wouldn't loose any voters. He was correct about that.
Everyone needs to vote. Period. Doesn't matter which side you're on. If everyone actually in the voter rolls votes in person with ID, there's no room for either side to claim it was stolen or manipulated.
Not everyone can vote in person. I vote by mail because of my job. Voting by mail is legitimate.
And Trump claimed the 2016 and 2020 elections were rigged and stolen before the elections or counting was done. It is a way to for criminals to try to steal elections and cast doubt on our voting process. It is evil.
There's no room for it to be claimed that 2020 was stolen. There never was, but 3 years later, there's overwhelming evidence it was fair. That hasn't stopped it being a major part of the GOP platform.
Take a look at the paper I just presented: sci-hub.st/10.2466/pr0.96.1.227-230. Proven by Illinois Department of Children & Family Services that homosexual parents are significantly more likely to abuse children.
Stop feeding the troll. Block him. Move on. He's here because he wants your negative reactions. He's a loser and this is the only way he knows how to get himself human interaction. You're encouraging him.
For others who are looking at this thread, the paper breaks down abuses by mother and father. The first cut is that 34% of the abuses were homosexual. So reasoning in generalities to support anti-LGBTQ+ causes is a misrepresentation right away. This is typical "scientifically backed" misinformation where the facts are twisted.
I'm not going to engage with the troll, but wanted to put something next to that link.
There are no arguments to be made because lgbt people just want to be accepted. the only harm to children is the abuse from the anti LGBT assholes. Stop trying to control people, that’s the whole agenda.
If that is how blind and one-sided you are living in your echo chamber. Then there’s nothing I can do about that except hope you are guided to the truth or face the consequences you will see in the next 10 or 20 years how much more worse the situation has gotten with this LGBT agenda.
The "LGBT agenda" is to be left alone. Stop sticking your nose in other people's sex lives, genitals, etc. The sickening and depraved "Muslim Agenda" can go double suck Jesus and Mohamed's cock with the equally disgusting Christians. Block this idiot and move on.
Real mature for mocking religious figures. If you don’t have the decency to respect other groups, this just shows your hypocracy for defending the LGBT group. I thought leftists were supposed to defend minorities?
When you show respect for the LGBT community, I'll show respect to religious groups that call for their death. If Jesus or Mohamed have a problem with me, I have given them a standing invitation to show up and prove me wrong. So far, they haven't come around. I wonder why.
Muslims aren't a minority. Fuck off with that nonsense. There are 1.9B Muslims globally, and, just like Christianity, they fuck up every country that they're in charge of.
They are in the US. less than 2% in the US. If you look at Muslim countries, they don’t have these social issues. Other issues like corruption sure, but not this degeneracy.
Saying "don't react to this incendiary post!" is just telling us you're trolling or just trying to shove your fake morals derived from ancient mythologies down our throats. Naw, we will always resist you.
I ain’t trolling. Knew I was going to get reactionary hate but was looking for some honest discussion. I guess I expected too much from this echo chamber.
There is no such thing as honest discussion with religious zealots. It's impossible to talk facts with people that believe in fairy tales, demons, heaven, satan, etc. Two completely different realities.
The SCOTUS has been a force resisting civil rights and good governance for pretty much all of American history.
Too many middle-aged and older people these days grew up under the Warren court, but the Warren court was a fucking blip. An anomaly. An aberration.
They looked at the clock of the court, saw the sun high in the sky, saw the hands pointed at noon, and thought to themselves "Ah, everything is working fine." But the clock's dead broken and has been for centuries.
Agreed. I would like to see a radical restructuring of the court, with additional justices to provide a better plurality of opinion and a non-partisan ethics oversight committee with the power to force recusals and bring criminal charges to justices that fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
Desegregation, right to a defense attorney & Miranda rights, ending mandatory school prayer.
But also colloquially the era stretching a bit beyond where the court had a Liberal vision often including decisions in the 70s/80s decisions like roe v wade
It baffles me how a fake case can even have any legitimacy with the court. Yet here we are...SCOTUS is even more a joke now. It's just so tragic their bad faith & buffoonery affects so many people .
Family values to these people is the right for a man to own a woman and for them both to own indentured servants. It makes exploitation sting less if you can be the "king of the castle" at home.
He lost the Presidential election and thanks to the patriots and heroes both elected and civil servants this enemy of our republics plans to install his regime under his authority and total control was thwarted... if he would have won I 100% would have respected the result but he did not and will not again and thankfully no amount of confusing you and your fellow enemies of this union and what it stands for will get in the way... losers gonna lose buddy and lies are always exposed if you choose to keep believing its on you and if you get in the way of our families, communities and country you'll wind up in prison paying Trumps price for him.
...audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.
Let's listen. [Begin Videotape]
STEVE BANNON: And what Trump's going to do is declare victory, right? He's going to declare victory, but that doesn't mean he's a winner. He's just gonna say he's a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they're going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump's going to take advantage — that's our strategy.
He's gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it's going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it's going to be even crazier. Because he's gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden's wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
The Christian web designer who says she was harmed by a gay couple asking her to do a webpage for their wedding was LYING. This Christian took a case to the Supreme Court claiming she was harmed by the gays but she was LYING. And the Christians on the court ruled to cause harm to the LGBTQ community by allowing their bigotry to be legal.
thats what i dont get about this whole thing. i thought in order to bring a case you had to have standing and courts would examine if your case was legit. how did it even get this far? wtf? i hate this country sometimes.
The liberal justices' first criticism of the decision was that the court shouldn't have heard the case at all because the plaintiff didn't have standing.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here. Not that I'd feel particularly bent out of shape about it if their images WERE revealed because it was pretty fucking easy to not be in that crowd inadvertently.
But we all know that's not why he's doing this. Mike Johnson doesn't believe in privacy or any other rights. He's a true conservative harnessing the apparatus of state to give comfort to his tribe and punish outsiders. He's using power to enforce his preferences and values on others. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States because he approves of the attempt to undermine democracy and execute a fascists takeover of the nation. Because he's a traitor.
The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.
Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.
That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.
DOJ does have that footage. But online sleuths have proven to be an extremely valuable resource in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using the CCTV footage to determine which rioters entered the building and then building a database with the clearest photos of those suspects. They have often used facial recognition for leads and have aided in hundreds of cases against Jan. 6 defendants.
Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here
I don't know that I'd agree with characterizing this as doxxing; I'd say it's more in line with reporting. Especially considering many of the terrorists involved in this attack are still at large.
You can have privacy in your private residence or at a private business. If you are in a public space you have never, ever had any expectation of privacy. This is as bad an argument as saying social media removing or censoring posts is against the right to freedom of speech.
That's a cop brain argument. Just because you're out "in public" does not give anyone permission to freely do with your personal information, such as images of you, however they so please. Utter horseshit. Your right to privacy in your affairs travels with you, and having a major political official post images of you which people may use to figuratively and literally attack you for political reasons without due process is about as major a violation as I can imagine, ignoring any other factors or details around that release.
You can make an argument that, this being an honest-to-god protest, maybe these people were conducting them in a fully-public way. I'd maybe buy that. But the burden needs to be pretty damn high on that, and so it's not a stupid little fucker like Mike Johnson's authority to make that decision.
Just because (US) law says that it is OK doesn't mean it is OK. Rights have supremacy over law and when the law stands in the way of rights, the law must change, not the rights. I'll remind you that in other places (e.g., Germany), this "out in public" distinction essentially does not exist.
Removing your rights requires due process, period. The (theoretically) proper agencies to follow that due process have the unredacted footage and so they can go through the procedures to release it justly if they feel it is necessary. Mike Johnson does not get to act as the judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this, no matter how much I expect anyone harmed by that act would be human shit.
We'll have no privacy rights at all in the near future if people keep uncritically accepting the arguments the cops make for when and where privacy exists.
Many rioters were identified by people who knew them based on previous footage. Anyone in the videos is already breaking the law, right? There were dozens of people livestreaming this already… I think you make a good point in general, but in this case I’m not sure I agree. There are places and times with an expectation of privacy, but storming your nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a democratic election is probably not one
We don't leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn't have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.
You're doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights -- presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It's an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.
If you think it's a good point in general but don't agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won't exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.
I respect your position on this. I’m not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a “protest” or otherwise? I’m not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don’t think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!
If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated?
Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.
Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
It would be different if they followed due process -- that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.
In a game that is only played in one country... (well two if this genius is successful)
“The independence of Texas is good for humanity as a whole,”
I doubt it is possible be more narcissistic and self centred.
Personally, If Texas ever declared and the USA allowed them to leave I have a feeling they would be begging the US to readmit them to the union in a very short time.
These people fail to realise that so much of what they benefit from being in Texas is because it is part of the USA.
What happens when NASA and the DOD remove all their facilities and staff?
What happens when they have to defend themselves?
Sign trade agreements with the rest of the world?
What happens when the USA slaps tariffs on their oil to protect US interests?
Etc
etc
etc
etc.
It reminds me of children talking about how cool it will be when they are adults and don't have to listen to mom and dad.
Walle said his outburst was in response not just to House Bill 4 and two other proposed state laws aimed at curbing migration at the Mexico border, but to a years-long trend in the Republican-controlled legislature of passing anti-immigration laws and allocating billions of dollars toward border security, which is the responsibility and jurisdiction of the federal government.
The Texas House early Thursday passed House Bill 4, which would make it a state crime to enter Texas illegally from Mexico while authorizing police to arrest offenders, drop them off at ports of entry and order them to return to their countries of origin; along with House Bill 6, which would allocate $1.5 billion in funding to build more physical barriers along the border; and Senate Bill 4, which would impose a minimum 10-year jail sentence for smuggling immigrants.
Regarding Senate Bill 4, Walle expressed concern about scenarios in which Americans could be driving a vehicle with undocumented friends or relatives who might be traveling to or from the same gathering, such as a church service or birthday party. Under the proposed law, Walle said, such Americans could be considered human smugglers and susceptible to a 10-year prison sentence.
So after Republicans voted Wednesday night to prevent new amendments to the bill and halt debate about it on the House floor, Walle said Thursday that the "Holy Ghost came over me." He approached his friend and fellow state representative, Republican Cody Harris of Tyler, who had made the motion to cut off debate, and gave him a profanity-laced tongue-lashing that was captured on video and shared widely on social media.
"Y'all don't understand the (expletive) that y'all do hurts our community. It hurts us personally, bro. It hurts us to our f—— core," said Walle, a Latino who represents the north part of Houston. "Y'all don't understand that. Y'all don't live in our f—— skin, and that's what pisses me off.
Go Walle. It's not even like he swore AT Harris. There was just emphatic swearing involved. And I want to see gloves off fighting from Democrats. I want to see this shit get into the media. If emphatic swearing is what gets this stuff noticed, go for it.
I think the thing that cut him to the core was that his own "friend" was the one who motioned to end debate, knowing that there wasn't a damn thing the Dems could do to stop the bill in the first place.
He wouldn't even give the Democrats what he had already agreed to give them.
Matt Gaetz is the one who brought chaos. The "Freedom Caucus" that wants nothing other than cruelty and authoritarianism. And Kevin McCarthy himself, for letting himself be taken advantage of by them.
If you're a Republican who wants to see an end to chaos, it's trivially easy to vote for Hakeem Jeffries.
Politics
Hot