There's actually a related idea that I unironically and dead seriously think would be great: I propose a new tiered system for Trump advisors who want to benefit from the nice things that civil society gives us all; police, courtrooms, judges, rule of law, etc (in addition to clean water and food inspection and all the rest of it).
Here's how the tiered system works: You either agree that you and everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, or else any crackpot who feels like kicking you in the balls or hitting you with a bat on your way to vote to impeach Hunter Biden or whatever the fuck, can do it, and you can't get mad or ask the legal system to punish them in any way, because you were the one who wouldn't agree that the rule of law is a good thing.
I think it'd be an elegant system. Anyone who talks about activist judges, or the witch hunt going on against Trump and how grand juries are always corrupt and I should be able to steal the election and fuck anyone who tries to stop me... bam. Right in the balls, any time someone feels like buying a ticket to Washington to do it.
I'm not advocating violence by any means. It would need to be a consenting arrangement where they had to agree on the record that laws and judges are officially a bad thing. But I feel like if that could be the system, it'd be a nice wake up call for any of these guys who currently get to have it both ways.
Military operations in Rafah could lead to a slaughter in Gaza. They could also leave an already fragile humanitarian operation at death's door," said U.N. aid chief Martin Griffiths. "We lack the safety guarantees, the aid supplies and the staff capacity to keep this operation afloat.
"The international community has been warning against the dangerous consequences of any ground invasion in Rafah. The Government of Israel cannot continue to ignore these calls," he said in a statement.
Talks involving the U.S., Egypt, Israel and Qatar on a Gaza truce ended without a breakthrough on Tuesday as calls grew for Israel to hold back on its planned Rafah assault.
"My sincere hope is that negotiations for the release of hostages and some form of cessation of hostilities to be successful to avoid an all-out offensive over Rafah," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters on Tuesday.
"That would have devastating consequences," he said.
The war in Hamas-run Gaza began when Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and capturing 253 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. In retaliation, Israel launched a military assault on Gaza that health authorities say has killed more than 28,000 Palestinians with thousands more bodies feared lost amid the ruins.
More than half Gaza's 2.3 million people are sheltering in Rafah, many of them penned up against the border fence with Egypt and living in makeshift tents. Griffiths said they are "staring death in the face."
"They have little to eat, hardly any access to medical care, nowhere to sleep, nowhere safe to go," he said. "I have said for weeks now that our humanitarian response is in tatters."
I know this whole message is preaching to the choir but:
You guys managed to find like the one time in history that US military ordinance killed civilians that unequivocally wasn't our fault, when they were attacking a clearly military target under occupation from a clearly malicious invading force
And you are, predictably, complaining like it's our fault you put the airfield right next to a fucking public beach and then didn't sound any kind of warning that it was under active bombardment and knocked one of the missiles off its military target and it fell on some people
Russia is also claiming they shot down 4 missiles. Their track record suggests that's unlikely. This whole story reeks of bullshit. Lemme know when literally any other country reports civilian casualties and then I'll care.
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
Imagine having so much to lose for your opinions, that you hope the people that you've oppressed carry out your sick fantasies.
On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."
I feel like America is encouraging the wrong attitudes. When it arrests peaceful protestors on Gaza, but won't touch the guys threatening to shoot up "leftys."
The Gaza Protests were only peaceful from the pro-palestine side. It was an orgy of violence from the Israeli side.
I suspect we'll see this pattern repeat itself, as cops stand shoulder to shoulder with fascists and their sympathizers, in stocastic terrorist campaigns.
They like the idea of somebody they think is on their side not giving a shit about the law, and they're too dull-witted and emotionally invested to recognize the simple fact that somebody who doesn't give a shit about the law doesn't give a shit about them either, and will betray them to get what he wants exactly as easily as he broke the law to get what he wants.
That's the thing with tyrants. They pretty much never come to power entirely on their own. It's nearly always the case that they come to power because some significant number of people ignored the clear warning signs and supported them anyway - actually believed that supporting this transparently power-hungry lying sack of shit was a good thing.
And then by the time those people figure out the score, it's too late.
If water temperatures do not cool, more coral will die, Lalita said.
The fuck do you mean “if”
We could stop all our carbon emissions today — all of them — and the feedback loops that are already underway would play out and keep everything getting hotter for at least a decade, whether or not that’s survivable for the coral or the fish or the crops we eat or the human body itself.
As it is, though, we’re still pouring more gasoline on the fire. Don’t say “if” like it’s not defined what’s in store for them.
These clowns say this crap all the time and nothing ever comes of it. Go look at the world news community on lemmygrad.ml and you'll see pages of tankie cope with as much basis in reality as the sonic movie.
40 is definitely higher than 10 but if its a failing score then you still deserve criticism. the debate was never about republicans. It's asinine to claim that criticism of Biden and democrats is automatically "Both sides are the same" material
It's amazing that Putin has managed to transform Russia from one of the worlds most powerful countries into a vassal state to China in such a short time.
Right, all the anti-genocide protestors will disperse because a U.S bill that hamstrings any attempt to stop the genocide MAY fail.. and hence critics will remain eerily silent.
The Republicans voted to pass a bill in the House to send the weapons. It will almost certainly fail in the Senate but, even if it doesn't, Biden would have to sign it into law. I don't see Biden signing a bill to override himself, and there is no way that Congress would get the required 2/3 in each chamber to override. This bill was just a performative stunt.
Sure but the point is, after months of pithy quips about how the Democrats will support genocide of the Palestinians and the Republicans will support genocide of everyone including the Palestinians;
here we see that even on this specific issue, the parties have differences. So make the right choice.
This isn't wrong, but this argument gets made over and over and over again in every political thread on almost every topic, whether or not it fits the flow of the conversation. People don't want to be preached at and it's going to be self defeating.
EDIT: Tone deaf establishment apologists are going to lose again and still not understand why. "Republicans suck more" is far less compelling than some people think, no matter how true. Winning elections and winning arguments are different things.
Feels like they should be adding critical contextual information like this to the titles. I know the headline writers hate the idea of people just reading the headline to get informed (because clicks are needed for ads), but people do get informed that way. It's a very different story if "Congress rebukes Biden on Israel" than "Republicans rebuke Biden on Israel", and I expect "US House" translates into an average reader's mind much more as "Congress" than "Republicans".
I can't imagine how such tests would be fair and not abused. It might make for a more effective electorate if there weren't so many poorly informed votes in the mix, but making that happen is almost certain to lead to abuse and very unlikely to produce the desired result.
Because it will lead to abuse and thus not try to measure political knowledge.
Because a reasonably accessible test can't really measure political knowledge. Even defining "politically knowledgeable" is hard. Do you need to watch Trump rally speeches to be politically knowledgeable? Do you need to know the three branches of government? Are we a democracy? Do we have free and fair elections? Can you be a single-issue voter, or do you need to prove you know all the other stuff?
And that's exactly why we can't vote for genocide Joe. Don't forget to sit out this election or vote third party - that's the only way to have a meaningful impact and improve the lives of Palestinians! /s
reuters.com
Hot