• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1111 months ago

      you can point out their hypocrisy, it doesn’t matter. you can make fun of them all you want, it doesn’t matter. you can debate their ideas, it doesn’t matter.

      if you want to save the world, there’s really only one solution.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        611 months ago

        I agree and disagree with that. If you don’t point it out and tell them (and others) that they’re wrong, then they go on doing it with zero pushback and it eventually becomes the truth.

        I completely understand what you’re saying, and it’s exhausting they just continue to shout over everyone, but nothing changes if no one does anything.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          you probably just got here like most lemmyists, but we’ve been pointing out the flaws in their ideology since the internet was birthed. no one’s listening. time for real solutions.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            “you’ve been here for over a year so you couldn’t possibly understand politics from the past four decades, or human nature”

            Wut

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            yeah organize violence on lemmy, that’s a great plan.

            what part of moscow do you reside in?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                then go for it high speed, stop beating around the bush and waiting for someone to do whatever you think is obvious and get to work.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  111 months ago

                  I’m just the propaganda arm of the revolution. My only goal is to make people realize that our current methods of beating the right aren’t working. It will take a significant portion of the population to truly fix anything (even winning elections doesn’t make them go away, and they will always be a roadblock to meaningful change). I’m not even really advocating for anything as much as I am trying to make you all understand that the problem is never solved until it’s solved once and for all. Furthermore, we will never be able to reach our utopian future as long as there are a significant number of us trying to go backwards. Humanity has endured so much to get to the point that it’s long time goals are within reach. Some generation of us deserves to reap the rewards. Will it be your children, or will another century have to be one of suffering? Can we afford to endure another century of this dystopia? Can the world even survive it?

                  This isn’t edgelord shit. This is just facing the reality that we have no choice but to be good stewards. The alternative dooms so much life on this planet.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months ago

        you can point out their hypocrisy, it doesn’t matter.

        It matters quite a bit when you’re talking about Presidential politics wrt an ongoing genocide.

        Jill’s condemned Putin, which is what everyone wanted her to do. But we’re not sending Putin our highest end military equipment for the purpose of killing Ukrainians now are we?

        Meanwhile, Hasan is bending over backwards to shield Biden and Netanyahu from accusations of a genocide we are facilitating.

        And that’s his point. He’s trying to get Jill to shut up about Gaza, because it’s the rock Kamala is poised to trip over in November. If she loses the Muslim vote in swing states, she’s cooked.

        Hasan needs Jill to recant her position on Israel in order to turn that protest vote against her. And you’re playing into that delusion, because you’re terrified she might actually manage to draw a Muslim protest vote in sufficient quantities to cost Democrats the election.

        That’s the only reason anyone on her gives a shit about the Green Party.

        • TooManyFoods
          link
          fedilink
          211 months ago

          I read that, he starts his question asking if she thinks Netanyahu is a war criminal by saying that he believes he is. You are lying. He did not defend Netanyahu, he did ask why she thought he was one, but that wasn’t in a rhetorical sense, like he was denying it, but he wanted to know why she could say "is a war criminal " with no caveat on one, but not the other. He starts by calling him a war criminal in that interview.

        • GratefullyGodless
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          Im confused as to why this comment is on this post, since this post concerns not a single thing you put in your comment. Commenting screeds like this in posts completely unrelated to what you’re going on about just gets you down voted and ignored, so nobody will see your comments, or take them seriously when they are actually relevant to the post you’re commenting upon.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3311 months ago

    Funny how the people who scream “you can’t change the second amendment” seem to be perfectly OK with nationalizing Christianity…which would violate the first amendment

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I’ve already read their mental gymnastics how America is a Christian country because blah blah blah. They specifically say that treaty that says it’s not is a treaty and not part of the US something or other.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        411 months ago

        What’s really fun is that for a big chunk of them, the first three Presidents (at minimum) were not Christian by the definition a lot of them prefer. Washington was a deist. Adams and Jefferson both explicitly rejected the Trinity, which a lot of them hold as being central to the definition of Christianity. Also, Jefferson made his own bible translation that took out the parts he didn’t like, and he wasn’t coy about saying so.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 months ago

        This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

        - Article VI, US Constitution

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      I’m not OK with either of those things, but I will tell you that the 2nd Amendment is here to stay. Read up on the process for amending the Constitution for reference. It only takes 13 states voting No to ratification to block it. A majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment, including VP Harris.

        • @[email protected]
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          Need to timestamp that too. Native Americans weren’t white. Then Columbus came, and he wasn’t white. The Spanish/Portugese were here for what, 100 years before England. Really gotta ignore at least the first 75% of years after Mary got knocked up till now.

            • @[email protected]
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              The Spanish he sailed under weren’t considered white. The Portugese where he came from wasn’t considered white. And Italians weren’t really considered white in the U.S. until late 1800s early 1900s. The terms WOP, Dago/Dego, Polac are terms I was still called in 90s, early 2000s as my father’s side is from Sicily, and my mother’s side was from Poland. Those terms stem from the not being accepted as white.

              Many people who discussed culture in the early 1900s believed to become white and treated as such you would have to earn it over a few decades of proving prosperity in the U.S. It was all pretty shitty.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                111 months ago

                There was no US in the 1490s to give their opinion on this topic. Why judge this on some arbitrary period of history which is neither contemporary with the facts nor current? What a weird take.

                • @[email protected]
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  The discussion is about the U.S. constitution. What the U.S.'s opinion was, is the topic. The arbitrary time period discussed was from the constitutions existence till now. What are you discussing?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2511 months ago

    You’d also not be able to own guns, or have freedom or religion or speech. Look up the meaning of Amendment why don’t you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      States could also do whatever they wanted until the 14th Amendment incorporated the Constitution down to them. Yes, that does mean states could have all the gun control laws they want (pursuant to their own constitutions) until it was explicitly incorporated in 2010.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    911 months ago

    There is a person here on Lemmy that seriously believes if you turn the constitution upside down it magically turns into Latin and has secret messages.

    So, yeah. Unfortunately I’m not surprised with this lady.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6411 months ago

    It needs to be called out just how weird it is that US Senators like this don’t understand the very document they have sworn to uphold.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2311 months ago

      The bar has been lowered so much that I wouldn’t be surpised to learn that some of them couldn’t even read.

      • LustyArgonian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I don’t think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.

        We should be careful about language like “can’t read,” when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally “can’t read,” but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who’d be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1211 months ago

          Out of curiosity, what word do you use to describe the act of run fingers over brail characters to process their meaning?

          • LustyArgonian
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            We do not know exactly how many people can read Braille, but at one point it was estimated to be 10% of blind people could read Braille. So 90% of blind people cannot read Braille. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145482X211071125?journalCode=jvba#:~:text=Another source for the 10,the United States” (p.

            Braille is also expensive and takes up significantly more paper. It is more time consuming to use. Compared to audiobooks, Braille is typically considered inferior and outdated in many circles. I already knew about Braille before I commented, yes. Reading should not be the bar to deny someone rights. It also was a classic racist tactic too. It’s a bad thing to advocate for (denying rights based on reading ability).

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Being unable to read shouldn’t be the bar to deny someone rights. But maybe it should be considered when we’re talking about placing them in a position where they have power and influence over millions of people??

              Honestly, I have no idea how you turned someone shitting on idiots into this attack on the blind.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Ok dude. If you want to be mad about this, then be mad.

                  By all means, let’s invite more incompetent morons from the right into political offices. Wouldn’t want anyone to think we hate blind people somehow. Because wanting the leaders of a country to be literate is apparently ableist and as morally reprehensible as transphobia and literal slavery lmao. No slippery slopes here!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      At this point I’m almost for requiring at least some sort of legal degree for these positions.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      411 months ago

      a LOT of the people most important to governing within the constitution, enforcing it, and specifically hired to protect your rights granted by it, know little, to nothing, about it

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      11 months ago
      congress@US:/govdocs/$ chmod 754 US_Constitution
      
      justices@US:/govdocs$ sudo  chown justices:usg US_Constitution
      
      justices@US:/govdocs$ chmod 744 US_Constitution
      
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 months ago

        justices forgot the rules of sudo

        We trust you have received the usual lecture from the local Systems Administrator. It usually boils down to these two things:
        #1) Respect the privacy of others. #2) Think before you type.

  • Zagorath
    link
    fedilink
    2311 months ago

    Eh, a rewrite is not the same as an edit.

    If I start talking about rewriting our code base, I’m not asking to fix a big or add a new feature, I’m saying we need to scrap everything we’ve got and start again.

      • shastaxc
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        According to the math he laid out in that document, it would be a longer period today to account for the increased life expectancy. At the time, it was only assumed that the average life expectancy was 55 years. Google says it is now about 78, so the suggestion for today’s world would be to rewrite the Constitution every 31 years or so.

        It makes sense. His logic is essentially that the Constitution is a contract that binds everyone in our society to a legal framework, but the rules were created for a specific time and people and binding future generations to the same rules would be the same as having a dead man continue to own all the property he aqcuired in life instead of having the ownership pass down to his descendants.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            Average lifespan was also seriously dragged down by child and infant mortality rates. Most historians and historical medical researchers agree that if you made it past 5 or so, you stood a decent chance of reaching your mid 70s.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              211 months ago

              Some people did some research and determined that if a male Roman citizen survived to 25, after childhood illnesses, youthful recklessness, and serving in the army, their life expectancy was about the same as ours.

  • Zerlyna
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4111 months ago

    We are trying our best to vote this bitch out here in TN.

      • flicker
        link
        fedilink
        1111 months ago

        Marsha Goddamned Motherfucking Blackburn.

        Stopped us expanding Medicare. In the pocket of the telecom companies. And all around, general, piece of shit.