Forums / Discussion / General

Seeing the "states rights to do what" meme again and again I'm reminded how cowardly people are to answer the question in an honest and contextual way.

The correct answer is: states right to uphold the institution of slavery which would have most likely ended by the end of the 19th century anyway as it was unable to sustain itself in the face of rapid industrialization (and we can point to serfdom in Russia becoming an unsustainable system as an example) but also the scramble for Africa would have most likely cut off supply of new slaves flowing into the Americas. Saying all that the motivation for the North was less about slavery and more about making sure states cannot secede without grave consequences. Thia pages the way of an increasingly federalized government that continues to increase and centralize it's own power, often in the veneer of a greater good. It's perfectly reasonable to admit why the southern states seceded, but let's also take into consideration the motivation of the north. Let's also evaluate the value of allowing States in our Union to secede if they strongly felt that the federal system is unfairly enforcing a system in them.

>Let's also evaluate the value of allowing States in our Union to secede if they strongly felt that the federal system is unfairly enforcing a system in them.

You can say as much with the Confederate States forcing citizens of the Union to become citizens of the Confederacy as they seceded.

No one YOU know is talking about those things

Talking about the Civil War, Palestine & Israel and fights with the Federal government.?

Sounds like the average American news-cycle.

Well, I've sort of grown tired of going over that and some of the other regular topics (theocracy, january 6th, etc…) and the Ukraine War & EU news & discussion can be found elsewhere.

I might not have access to the internet during New Year, so happy new year !
It's supposed to be the Year of the Dragon.

Tying the talk of the American Civil War back into more recent events, ratification of the 14th Amendment was a requirement for former Confederate states to regain representation in government. On one hand, this makes sense, as much of the amendment indirectly addressed them; on the other, this decision defeated the purpose of ratification, threatened to disenfranchise people who were already angry, and didn't exactly help tensions between the North and the South.

It's important to note, as well, that four years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Congress passed the "Amnesty Act" into law, which nullified most of the most contentious section of said amendment, Section 3. This law guaranteed enfranchisement to former soldiers of the Confederacy, and President Grant pardoned many of its former leaders and officers around that same time.

Something else interesting I learned while looking things up: former Confederate President Jefferson Davis was never convicted of any crime, though he was imprisoned for about two years. The plan was initially to try him for war crimes, but as no good evidence could be found, the House of Representatives instead voted to try him for treason. This didn't end up going anywhere, either, and he was ultimately pardoned by Andrew Johnson in 1868, five months after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

I suppose what we can learn from this is that the political sphere in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War was somehow less polar and vitriolic than it is now. How the fuck did we get here?

@Spaghetto

I suppose what we can learn from this is that the political sphere in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War was somehow less polar and vitriolic than it is now. How the fuck did we get here?

Probably because it came after a war.

Pre-civil war politics & rhetoric was toxic, violent and close to hysterical from what I remember reading history, and was also extremely hypocritical about state's rights. Than a lot of people died.

Confederates lost, the Union won, it was one country and the North needed to help the South rebuild. End of story for the US. Everyone could back home and do some work and rebuild to avoid starving, with maybe some radicals moving to South America. Most "lost cause" and Civil War myths came from during reconstruction and the civil rights movement.

I'm not really interested in January 6th anymore, but I found it interesting how you immediately jumped on a connection, any connection to talk about it. That's not resolved for you, is it? I wager it's not solved either for the Democrats and American Left either, they don't feel there was justice.

My main point is this: people with a chip on their shoulder either learn to cool off, or they die. Either way, society moves on.

Actually, since I'm back for a bit.

@Chewybunny
>state rights

Does all of this include the state's ability to disqualify an individual person from the Presidency ballots?

Since you mentioned it, on issues that I stopped talking about because no one else seemed to give a shit, abortion seems to have been the main election ruiner for the Republicans. That shitshow a while ago in Texas (always Texas) also showed it wasn't about life, nor was it even about 'morality'.

Who knows, there would be some sweet justice that with all the big debates & conspiracies about elections, foreign policy fights, if would be a "simple" policy & state right issue that the American Right supported just to placate their religious nuts gutted them.

Just had to make one smartass comment for the road. We'll see next year !

Correct. No one I know is talking about it. Tell me, has anyone here been talking about it? Is there a KYM entry about it? Go onto Social Media, like reddit/r/worldnews is there a dedicated thread to it? Does it even get a blip in trending on Twitter? Where are the marches, the protests, the tens of thousands marching through New York, or London?

But we sure as hell have a massive march 50,000 person march in New York calling for a globalized intifada, and a final solution.

That's a great question. I think at the bare minimum if a state wants to be part of a greater union (whether that be the US or the EU for example) there should be certain things it must abide by, a contractual agreement of sorts. In this case I think it's a good idea that states that do join a union would agree to have roughly equal electoral systems. I think having some states ban a particular candidate from being in their ballot is only going to create a lot of problems. Specifically in this case what if the primary comes down very very close and Trump makes the argument that should he have been on the Maine and Colorado allowed him to be on it he would have won. It would be very chaotic and fuel the perceived oppression he and his followers have. Frankly I wish he wasn't even running.

"Go onto Social Media, like reddit/r/worldnews is there a dedicated thread to it"

Yes, you just havent bothered to look for anyone talking about these things because you dont actually care yourself either.

I'll grant too you that people might care less, but if you think people dont care at all; you'd be wrong.

Do tell me. When was the last time you talked about any other conflict besides Israel and Palestine, or Ukraine and Russia on this site?

Because you made the choice to respond to me telling me that just because I'm not seeing anyone talk about it doesn't mean it's ignored. And it's clear that you're ignoring it. And I point out, that it wasn't just KYM I was looking at.

I give a damn about these conflicts because I give a damn about the larger looming conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt, and Ethiopia and Eritrea where Sudan would be in the middle of both. I give a damn about these conflicts because I know that it's going to drag in a lot of nations into the conflicts as well, and I am particularly interested in geopolitics as a whole. I am very concerned about the breakdown of the American global order, which, whether you like it or not, guarantees the existing global maritime shipping, and also serves as the (not so perfect) enforcer of a global order that a majority of international states enjoy.

And yes, you are partially correct here, as a Zionist, and more importantly, as a Jew, I am constantly am made aware as to why conflicts which are far more violent, far more atrocious get hardly a blip on the news compared to whenever Israel and Palestine are at each other's throats. I find it particularly interesting that my people are always made the exception by the likes of people like you.

As far as "Apartheid State" there is no such thing under international law, and even the NGOs, such as HRW explicitly admitted to such. And even then they only make the argument as it pertains to, largely, the West Bank, not Israel as a whole. If you're going to sling out these loaded words at least know a tiny bit about what you're talking about.

I for one am hoping for more rightwing infighting cause at the very least its extremely hilarious.

"Leftwing infighting is also hilarious you soybo"

I know lmao, but this gets even funnier

@Steve
>No you didnt, like at all.
Bro. You literally responded to it. You literally quoted the part where I posted:
"Go onto Social Media, like reddit/r/worldnews is there a dedicated thread to it? Does it even get a blip in trending on Twitter? Go onto Social Media, like reddit/r/worldnews is there a dedicated thread to it? Does it even get a blip in trending on Twitter?"

>So you only care that big corporations and governments can line their pockets? You sure owned me here, pal.

I would rather those governments be western than not. I would rather have international trade and shipping be protected and guaranteed by the US navy, than not. I would rather the global economy flourishes and expands it's prosperity to more people than come back to a 19th century mercantilism, where we are at an economic breakdown by the whims of some rogue nation. I would rather there be some sort of a rule based order rather than a multi polar world on the brink of a WW3, correct. And if you are that inept to seeing the benefits of that world, then yeah, you should feel owned.

>Is it because the US is responsible for a lot of these conflicts through over the horizon operations and US legacy media doesn't want to report it because it aligns with their owner's capitalist interests? Or are you going the self victimization route?

Do tell me, how is the US responsible for what's going on in Sudan? Or what's looming over the horizon with Ethiopia damming up one of the sources to the Nile? Directly positioning itself into confrontation with Egypt. Was it the US that built those hydroelectric dams? Was it the US that cut Eritrea off from Ethiopia? Was it some sort of machinations by the US that drove Venezuela to now want to invade and annex half of Guyana? I'd love to know so please share them.

>you are just factually wrong
No I am not. I read the HRW reports, especially the ones from 2021, "A Threshold Crossed", and I also read it's criticisms, which wasn't particularly covered with sexy headlines. So since you decided to quote the HRW on this issue, I will as well
"There is no such thing as an apartheid state, as far as international law is concerned. There is the crime of apartheid, committed by individuals."

Furthermore, the HRW definition of Apartheid itself is a combination of two other international laws that they had to put together because there isn't a clear definition in international law.

Amnesty International took it a step further, and as far as I am concerned has lost all credibility a long time ago.

They are nothing more than glorified NGOs, not judges.

>accusations from zionists mean nothing

Good to know how you feel about concerns coming out of majority of Jews out there.

Probably because it came after a war.

That's a good point, actually. There is still an important difference: when the dust settled, the people with the power to do anything weren't feeling vindictive, they were feeling reconciliatory. Attempts to mend relations and the economic gap were made; these attempts weren't particularly successful, but they at least tried. Nowadays, we probably wouldn't get that after any theoretical second Civil War or period of violence like the Troubles. We have too many Shermans and not enough Grants. If the politicians of today were in charge back then, there'd be more than a few assholes calling for the trial and execution of every Confederate soldier.

I'm not really interested in January 6th anymore, but I found it interesting how you immediately jumped on a connection, any connection to talk about it. That's not resolved for you, is it?

There's two ways in which one can honestly and truthfully compare January 6th to 9/11. One, they're mostly known for their dates (though 9/11 is far more iconic). And two, they act as a specter over American politics for quite a while afterwards. It took ten years to kill Bin Laden and finally get something resembling closure. With this, it's only been three.
Besides, I'm not really choosing absurd things to draw parallels to. A similar situation in Serbia? Our own past, in the aftermath of something much more destructive (and something that not only warrants, but surpasses, the use of terms like "insurrection")? I could be making nonsensical movie references.

It is absolutely absurd to compare 9/11 to Jan 6th. 9/11 was a massive watershed moment not just for the US but the US's place in the world. It was the moment where the post Cold war era ended, and the optimism of the 90s absolutely died. It was the beginning of an era that fundamentally changed the US's position in the world, and the direction where the focus of the world was. It pushed the US to fundamentally shake up the middle east – begin the newest and next phase of culture war, and political divisions, while simultaneously setting the stage for how conflict would be dealt with to today. There is not a place on Earth I'd wager, that today has not felt a ripple of 9/11.

January 6th was an isolated event in US history that is overstated in it's attempt, and it's potential. It's only purpose is to create a public fear of populist attitudes, and the threat of radical elements potentially subverting the established systems we have. In reality, at it's worst, absolute worst, if Jan 6th succeeded it would have been a mild constitutional crisis that would have most likely panned out no differently than what we have today. Anyone who puts any real stock into it exposes their ignorance into how strong our political institutions are, and the importance of our division of political power, and how robust the US system honestly is.

It was hardly a coup, it was hardly a insurrection, it was hardly anything more than a riot gone bad – exacerbated by the consequences of 2020 summer's riots over George Floyd. It's a blip in American politics, and a tiny drop in the affairs of the world.

This is why I wish Trump would just exit from the political spotlight. He's fuel to the perpetual fire of absurdist rage-bait. And he relishes in absolute delight seeing the reaction towards him continually backfire. No one, not the progressives, the media, the right wing, no one wants to move beyond Trump. It's sad and sickening.

@Spaghetto Civil War

the people with the power to do anything weren't feeling vindictive, they were feeling reconciliatory. Attempts to mend relations and the economic gap were made; these attempts weren't particularly successful, but they at least tried.

It takes two to reconcile. For example, after Lincoln's assassination, officials in the south were horrified. They were disgusted, and worried on how it would affect reconstruction.

Can you imagine how things would have gone if instead officials celebrated? The North would have been enraged, there would have been far less goodwill.

The willingness for both sides to work out difference and rebuild is the difference between a successful country-building like with Germany & Japan and something like Afghanistan.

@Spaghetto & @Chewybunny January 6th.

Personally, I think 9/11 is more important, as the after-effects of the war on terror are much larger and palpable. Jan 6th will linger, if you let it linger.

He's fuel to the perpetual fire of absurdist rage-bait. And he relishes in absolute delight seeing the reaction towards him continually backfire. No one, not the progressives, the media, the right wing, no one wants to move beyond Trump. It's sad and sickening.

The problem of trying to turn politics into entertainment, is that normal shows eventually stop. Politics don't, and a circus that never ends is hell.

Jeez, still going to downplay January 6th as much as possible? And mind that there is no equal responsibility for Trump between the aisles at this point, the left can ignore Trump as much as they'd hope to but only one side wants him and they want to propagate him as loud as possible. How can you expect the other side to pretend like that isn't happening?

Correct, because I am looking at January 6th for what it was. Because I at least have some understanding of how robust our political system is. Because I understand what the worst case scenario would have been: a constitutional crisis that would have probably gone to the Supreme Court and would have absolutely failed to amount to anything. Because I also know what coups look like. Does this mean I don't think Trump shares some responsibility for it? He does, and he should have, and could have done more. But there was also shared responsibility, from what I understand, by DC police and Mayor who was afraid of another "summer of love".

And above all, because I recognize that Jan 6th is radically over-played because it is the biggest thing the anti-Trump crowd can wield against him, his supporters, and by proxy conservatives themselves. It is used as a massive cudgel to dismiss and erase any positive gain the Trump administration had – especially towards the end of the 2020, when the Abraham Accords came out, and when the promised "Trump Vaccine" was actually finished. Ironically, most of his administrative positives were absorbed by the Biden administration and continued on: the vaccine, hostile shift towards China, a reworking of the middle east, a beginning process for an Afghanistan exit, the continual demand for increased NATO contribution from non US NATO members, Jerusalem recognized as the Capitol of Israel, etc. Ironically the one thing that Biden tried to reverse that Trump started – the Iran deal – has backfired tremendously and now is a political suicide. It is also used to utterly dismiss legitimate grievances his supporters have, and the policies that many conservatives wanted to implement.

The left cannot let go of Trump because Trump was their biggest rallying call for unity to have solidarity over. The left-leaning media absolutely loved-hate him because he gave them the ratings they wanted. Comedians and late-night show hosts had literally 4 years of self-written comedy.

The right cannot let go of Trump because Trump was the first President that the Republicans had that understood (at least on the surface) their 2 decade old growing resentments towards not just the left, but over-all establishment politics. And there is, to this day, no one that can really replace that. The rage that it created in the establishment and the modern urban elite alleviated the sense of injsustice they felt all those years.

But I am tired of Trump. He's so goddam BORING. He brings NOTHING to the table anymore. He has no policies except phrases. He has no new ideas. He has no vision for the US future. He cannot GIVE the Americans a common vision. Nor does he understand the rapid changes the world has endured in the last 3 years. I don't want him to run. And I don't care for whatever legal battles he's being put through because the guy has demonstrated that anything that is done against him backfires spectacularly. Just as Colorado and Maine not including him on the ballot gave him and his supporters tons of legitimacy.

I mean yeah but it was still morally repugnant and stupid

" Bro. You literally responded to it. You literally quoted the part where I posted: "

right, and you asked me if i seen any of those things, and i know you didnt look because you would absolutely have seen those conflicts on r/worldnews. But anways, this point is still invalid by the fact that YOU are talking about, and you are SOMEBODY, therefore it cant be that no one is talking about it, because someone is. Theres also the fact that somebody had to get that info and report it to you, so there is still somebody talking about it.

"I would rather those governments be western than not."

so, racism then?

" I would rather have international trade and shipping be protected and guaranteed by the US navy, than not. I would rather the global economy flourishes and expands it's prosperity to more people than come back to a 19th century mercantilism, where we are at an economic breakdown by the whims of some rogue nation. I would rather there be some sort of a rule based order rather than a multi polar world on the brink of a WW3, correct. "

Oh, so its international law an order until a non-white country uses their right to block their waters. Its international law and order, except Israel gets a pass. Your WW3 hysteria is just that, hysteria; and its so old hat and gets said every conflict. But what do you care anyway? That would only help the economy if it did. You've established there is no moral or ethical red line to cross for your support of companies like Raytheon.

"Do tell me, how is the US responsible for what's going on in Sudan?
The US supported the two generals who couped the civilian government, but its not like you actually care about these conflicts anyway, you already established theres no amount bodies or suffering that you would object to as long as the cash kept flowing.

"No I am not"
Yes you are you said "As far as "Apartheid State" there is no such thing under international law, and even the NGOs, such as HRW explicitly admitted to such." and then I showed you two.

". So since you decided to quote the HRW on this issue, I will as well
"There is no such thing as an apartheid state, as far as international law is concerned. There is the crime of apartheid, committed by individuals."

It literally says in the next sentence, "Human Rights Watch found that Israeli officials committed the crime of apartheid through specific acts and policies carried out in certain areas under their control." but that fact wasnt convenient for you.

"Furthermore, the HRW definition of Apartheid itself is a combination of two other international laws that they had to put together because there isn't a clear definition in international law.

Amnesty International took it a step further, and as far as I am concerned has lost all credibility a long time ago.

They are nothing more than glorified NGOs, not judges."

This 100% moving the goalpost and I'm really not gonna waste my time arguing whether the position of HRW is valid and what really counts as apartheid with a self avowed nationalist. I gave you exactly what you asked for and now you go "well, acthully…"; there's just no point.

"Good to know how you feel about concerns coming out of majority of Jews out there."

The majority of jews worldwide would not claim to belong to a nationalist group. That itself, is actually anti-Semitic, which is ironic

It was absolutely stupid.
But I don't know about the morality. I try to view it from the perspective of a die-hard Trump supporter. Election night concluded with a Trump victory, they went to bed thinking the election was settled, because that was the case in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, all the way back to 2000 when it was such a close call it ended up being an issue with just 1 state: Florida. But this wasn't like those elections at all, it was something radically different: overnight the Biden votes sky rocketed, due to counting of votes sent by mail – something that was a major factor in the election because of COVID.

Almost immediately we had a slew of videos of suspicious activity, a political and media circus, recounts, accusations from left and right of treason and trying to steal the election. And it certainly didn't ebb away when you had someone like Trump zealously fighting it. Of course, if you believe that there was shenanigans which radically changed that number it was an assault on the legitimacy of our electoral system. Of course you're going to be passionately driven to defend it.

From the perspective of many on the left Trump and Trump supporters were destroying Democracy.
From the perspective of many on the right Trump and Trump supporters were preserving Democracy.

And it seemed to me that there was little done by the Biden administration, the media, the Democratic party, or those passionate activists to reconcile and mend the divide. On the contrary, it seemed to me there was a fervent drive to smear it in the face of the opposition.

I'll be honest even I was extremely suspicious of the results of the election in those early few weeks, but as the evidence mounted that the election was legitimate, I didn't have a doubt that Biden won.

It is absolutely absurd to compare 9/11 to Jan 6th. 9/11 was a massive watershed moment not just for the US but the US's place in the world.

Personally, I think 9/11 is more important, as the after-effects of the war on terror are much larger and palpable. Jan 6th will linger, if you let it linger.

Then I think we're largely in agreement on this, even if we differ somewhat on the details.

It takes two to reconcile.

This is true. However, mercy is entirely the responsibility of the victor; the vanquished must have a good reason to want to reconcile, after all.

Jeez, still going to downplay January 6th as much as possible?

Calling it "a riot gone bad" is a rather accurate assessment of what actually happened – some violent imagery here, some property damage there, and some politicians suddenly down one good pair of pants.
There's not much to be gained from "downplaying" it, but a lot to be gained from exaggerating it; politicians, after all, wanted another 9/11, not another Bonus Army. Hard to use a mere riot to justify indefinite detention without charge, after all.

But I am tired of Trump. He's so goddam BORING. He brings NOTHING to the table anymore. He has no policies except phrases. He has no new ideas. He has no vision for the US future. He cannot GIVE the Americans a common vision.

Does anyone at all relevant to US politics have a vision for the future? Any coherent policies or new ideas? We're at a very weird point in politics where everyone is either recycling old ideas and trying to force them to fit new situations, or just trying to steer the ship onto a better course, with the hope that successors will actually know what the hell to do. Trump isn't different there, but being a businessman instead of a politician means he has different paradigms and intuitions, and introducing new perspectives can allow for new solutions to old problems.

I think that's why one of his main big ideas can best be summarized as laying off a whole hell of a lot of bureaucrats. It's business thinking, not political thinking.

This is true. However, mercy is entirely the responsibility of the victor; the vanquished must have a good reason to want to reconcile, after all.

Sure, but the vanquished who refuse to recognize they're vanquished extend a war, with all that comes with it. Think of the Paraguayan War, where they fought until some sources say they lost a majority of their population. Was it the fault of Brasil and Argentina that they were that suicidal?

It's not necessarily on the vanquished to accept their loss of course, a lot of resistance movements in WWII fought on past their initial defeat (and for good reason). A brutal victor can not only expect, but deserve a resistance. Tyrants are deluded if they think a person will just take orders for the sake of it, and no one sane will argue that the Nazis were justified in their brutal reprisals.

It's pretty much the big question on how to "win" the peace, something that has been going on since the dawn of human civilization.

@Chewybunny

Setting aside anything with Trump & January 6th , I'd like to talk about his supporters (and it ties into the above conversation with Spaghetto). One of your justifications for them was how they felt, and how many times their anger and perception has to be placated and coddled.

How do you deal with a group where the world doesn't exist past their aggrieved perception of it? Whose contribution to the world-stage was to be an asshole towards everyone (and at worse, they were actively on the side of dictators)? Take, take, take, not a lot of give in that relationship.

It's exhausting to have to deal with the aggressive and seemingly irrational (although as you say, they're justified in their own worldview), but that can still be done and should be done. The problem is when they become dangerous, threats are where I think the line should be drawn.

To be very general about this, I find too many people are willing to justify violence, particularly under the logic of "blood debts" (you did something, so I can do it back, which gets very heinous when it starts to become the "sins of the father are inherited by the sons" type logic).

This mentality isn't limited to one ideology, by the way.

What's somehow worse is how many are unwilling to accept the consequences of it. Yeah, it's easy to cry out civil/holy/imperial/reconquest war on the internet, but it's much less glorious to be arrested or killed because of it.

Lots of people tearing down the post WWII & Cold War institutions that they no longer understand because they got bored of peace, and now are learning the dire version of regulations are written in blood.

It may be simplistic, but siding against the side who are acting like maniacs (no matter their excuses) has helped for me, as well as switching sides or siding with no one when the side I backed are also acting like maniacs.

One of your justifications for them was how they felt, and how many times their anger and perception has to be placated and coddled.

It's telling of your opinion and biases that you frame their anger and issues as things that need to be "placated and coddled", rather than acknowledged or understood. I'm actually genuinely curious about your thought process here. Why should they be merely "placated", not listened to? Is it their political leanings, the way in which their angry, their lifestyles? Do you believe in the existence of "microaggressions"?

That said, this is overshadowed by where you go next…

How do you deal with a group where the world doesn't exist past their aggrieved perception of it?

Are you trying to claim that, by and large, the problems and issues of Trump supporters are illusory? Or did you just horribly bungle a less insane statement? Like, if we're gonna claim that entire swathes of the electorate are complaining about nothing (and with only vibes as justification, mind you), then there isn't even entertainment value to be had here.

In actual news, the Colorado case is being expedited to the Federal Supreme Court. It'll be quite interesting to see how this plays out.

What is there to understand and aknowledge at this point?

I am legitimately asking cause I dont think making Trump the dictator of the USA is really an option here and some actively want that.

Others thought there was electoral fraud but….there wasnt any so what is there to debate, I can understand why they thought that but not much can be done if there wasnt any fraud and they refuse to believe it…

This people been pissed off for years since Trump lost but nobody can do shit about it cause they stay mad regardless at this point, even when Trump was in power they were still angry.

Anger is their default emotion and as fully grown adults are stuck in said emotion (which is my emotion too) is not something any particular thing happening will change.

Honestly you know what? I dont even know if anger being your emotion is really something "wrong" that needs to be solved, its just how they are tbh.

Some people were born to be angry just like some people were born to be sad or horny I dont know what to tell you.

To practice what I preach, any thoughts on Xi's purge of the CCP's military?

At the start it was thought to be a simple purge of competent officers to strengthen Xi's hold on power (like Stalin), but American Intelligence now says that their army actually had multiple issues, so it's a way to rehabilitate their army (and for Xi to cement his power).

Overestimating the capabilities of your own army due to corruption is a good way to blunder into a war that spirals out of control (like the Russians), so hopefully that means the Chinese will wait before starting anything. The bad news is that they'll likely be better prepared in any future conflicts.

With all the other dictators in the world doing their power-play right now, at least China staying out of it (for now) is good news.

I am just glad Disney is getting fucked over in three different ways, marvel movies have bombed, steamboat willy is public domain and people are using to insult Disney in different ways and Wish and other disney movies have been critical failures.

Hopefully Disney gets fucked more and more so that they dont become this massive monopoly AND pay for what they did to the public domain (they were going to fuck it up even further or remove it altogether the bastards mind you they just failed too)

Nobody is starving in the US.
We literally had to create an entirely new terminology in the late 70s and 90s to describe the conditions by which some people in the US aren't getting enough nutritional food, all the time because more or less starvation and hunger in the US was such an extreme rarity: Food insecurity. You can, at best, point out to a rising number of people dying from "malnutrition" and the overwhelming majority of these are 85+ who haave poor eating habits, bad nutrition, and aren't taking care of themselves.

Yes!
YES!
YYYYEEEEESSS!

While I agree that malnutrition is the biggest issue in much of the developed world more than outright starvation (look at the obesity rates), I can actually point to one example of politicians cost-cutting on food like this.

Remember the issue of Republicans cutting free school lunches for children?

There's a bunch of other headlines on that since that was first brought up. Turns out there's a wide segment of kids who only get a meal from school due to messed up home lives (problem that happens everywhere really). With how small that figure is, maybe the comic is referencing that.

Child labour, child hunger and general child welfare is another topic I brought up around here, with (to quote) little "understanding or acknowledgement". Victorian-era villainy, that's another actual issue, not the prior made use nonsense and hurt feelings.

Justice for Disney screwing up the Star Wars sequels !

Well, that and monopolies are bad.

Don’t forget about what Disney did to The Owl House!

It would be really nice if The New Republic link you provided actually provided some context to their accusation. It's no wonder that their publication is lost 80% of it's subscriptions since 2000.

This is what the The New Republic was referring to:

You can actually read the entire budget yourself.

The goal of which is to reduce spending by 16 Trillion over 7 years, which I think is absolutely necessary. Would they do it? Probably not. And is this the best way to go about it? We can debate that.

Instead of cutting free school lunches for children. It's trying to focus that public spending on lunches for kids who really need it rather than everyone. Also, allegedly the program is full of fraud and abuse.

No we can debate the merit of this, if you'd like. But this isn't at all the same as cutting free school lunches for children – within the context of discussing malnutrition. On the contrary it, in effect, focuses spending on children who actually need it.

I'm sure you'd agree that welfare spending on the rich is a terrible idea.

Iowa Starting Line

Business Insider

Newsweek

Here's a few sources, I'd prefer it if you didn't start with attacking the source, especially since I believe I've already mentioned this issue multiple times. Whatever the case, at least we can agree this is happening.

Now, we can quibble that it was a pandemic program which Republicans don't want to extend, and whether the "attempt to starve kids" is a fair accusation.

The goal of which is to reduce spending by 16 Trillion over 7 years, which I think is absolutely necessary.

We can debate that, I recall a high amount of the deficit was because of the American Right's trade wars, which costed around several billions, (estimates vary, if anyone is willing we can balance the budget of how much that cost versus other programs like the free school lunches), as well as other vanity projects, governmental shutdowns & corporate tax cuts.

Fiscal responsibility & deficit seems to be another value which is only touted when convenient. It's not an innocent cost-cutting.

Would they do it? Probably not. And is this the best way to go about it? We can debate that. Instead of cutting free school lunches for children. It's trying to focus that public spending on lunches for kids who really need it rather than everyone.

No we can debate the merit of this, if you'd like. But this isn't at all the same as cutting free school lunches for children – within the context of discussing malnutrition. On the contrary it, in effect, focuses spending on children who actually need it.

Maybe yes, maybe not? Not acceptable.

You know the reason why I keep on mentioning how "abortion would be allowed for medical emergencies" was a complete lie? For this. I don't particularly believe there's any credibility that there would be a replacement, or temperance.

The American Right have a duty to enforce childcare policies, instead of currently cutting them, with what they've done.

I'm sure you'd agree that welfare spending on the rich is a terrible idea

Not particularly, at least when it comes to children. I'm not sure what I am politically, but I'm not going to get angry at those damn "rich kids" who get a free lunch.

Those lunches are already going to the people who need it and deserve it most. Kids in general are the most vulnerable, this is the money for the most blameless people. Don't have a lot of empathy for adults who make bad choices, but don't blame kids.

This move would either remove it and make kids suffer (from the same people who are loosening child labour laws) or have a lot of ifs, buts and what-ifs about restructuring to somehow send it to more "deserving kids" to pinch some pennies.

Also, allegedly the program is full of fraud and abuse

"Allegedly" doesn't cut it. Post a source, or stop it. This statement has backed down from the clear allegation in your screenshot.

Allegedly I think there's a lot of crooks in this world, but at least internet sites have to be posted about it.

I'd like to point out that the initial comic was "stop immigration to care of our own".

That's the explanation that the Republicans & American Right are using to justify them blocking aid to Ukraine. So where's the programs to "take care of our own"?

If it's just an attempt to cut expenses, than just call it an austerity policy. Austerity happens, be honest about it.

(FYI, I'm mentioning this because the source for the above claim of fraud is this [144] . It's allegations spun as ideology).

Going to need some hard numbers and sources on that alleged fraud and abuse there. I remember when Florida decided to try and drug test people on welfare to try and save money.
I don't know what the fully expected results were, but we do have the hard numbers on how hard the program failed in saving said money.

From the ACLU website itself:
https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare
"In the four months that Florida’s law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs -- a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegal drugs."
"The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants -- 3,938 to be exact -- who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that’s only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn’t deter individuals from applying for help -- an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."

So before you start to claim how programs that are for helping to get decent food to kids who need it is full of fraud and abuse, we're going to need some sources and/or investigations giving us some hard numbers saying so.
And another point – even if there is some level of fraud and abuse, that means investigations and reforms are needed, not completely scrapping programs that are, once again, meant for getting kids food.
Remember, this is America. There are far more poor kids than there are rich kids benefiting from this program.

I'm saying I'm sick of the following:
[genuine inquiries presented in a harsh manner]

The fact that you chose to completely ignore my questions and come up with petulant and weak reasons to avoid them ("you have a chip on your shoulder! it's 'twitter speak'! it's insane!!!") tells me more than any genuine answer you could've given. At the same time, it's much more complex to unravel.

You have a deep unwillingness to question yourself and your worldview. You don't even want to consider questions that may be difficult, lest the process make you lose confidence in what you steadfastly believe, or reveal things about yourself you don't wish to acknowledge (like being severely classist, for example).

On January 6th? Yes, the American Right weren't able to substantiate their "stolen election claim"

It's gotten more complicated with time. Unfortunately, half the country already believed that there was chicanery, and the other half has been thoroughly convinced that it was the Most Secure Election In History™, so any new information in any direction either preaches to the choir or falls on deaf ears. I don't think we're ever going to get a satisfying answer that most people can accept. Especially given that a lot of people are still convinced that 2016 was stolen…

We can debate that, I recall a high amount of the deficit was because of the American Right's trade wars, which costed around several billions

The national debt has been climbing pretty hard since 2009, with the most notable spike outside of this trend being during mid-2020 (for reasons that should be obvious). Neither the "trade war" nor elevated printing of money post-2020 altered the trend by much, if at all.

Florida Senate Bill 1780 was introduced by Florida State Senator Jason Brodeur, known for his so-called "Blogger Bill he introduced last year.

---

From Senate Bill 1780

(Line 116)

770.11 Clarifying defamation standards.

Lines 117-134 are on defining defamation:

(1) A fact finder shall infer actual malice for purposes of a defamation action when:

Here are things you would generally expect: "The defamatory allegation is fabricated by the defendant" and "There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the defamatory allegation". But the section after this, read as the second section under "clarifying defamation standards": Lines 135-148

(2) An allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per see.

(a) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs.

(b) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s scientific beliefs

( c) A prevailing plaintiff for allegations under this subsection is, in addition to all other damages, entitled to statutory damages of at least $35,000.

The bill also targets anonymous sources. Lines 151-153

770.12 Presumption regarding anonymous sources.
(1) A statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action.

I understand the inherent issue with anonymous sources. However, when people are getting bomb threats over YouTube animations they made saying like girls, assuming anonymity as "presumptively false" should be raising concerns. In addition, this specifies the form of media this can take, which includes social media (Lines 54-62)

770.05 Limitation of choice of venue.

(1) As used in this chapter, the term “defamation or privacy tort” refers to libel, slander, false light, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication, exhibition, or utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper, book, or magazine, any one presentation to an audience, any one broadcast over radio or television, any one exhibition of a motion picture, or any one publication, exhibition, or utterance on the Internet.

---

CBS Miami

The New Republic

Erin in the Morning

Obvious biases are present as always. Most of the others I found are either worse on biases or have it mentioned in less detail in larger articles.

@Spaghetto

What worldview?

My main point was how tired I am of the same topic and having to deal with the emotional fallout of it, and how I thought it was a distraction for more important things (I did espouse a viewpoint near the end with abortion, but you ignored it, so it shouldn't even count in the response).

or reveal things about yourself you don't wish to acknowledge (like being severely classist, for example).

You know what? Just say it, it may be a genuinely fun exercise. We'll see if you have me down to rights at my many faults, or if you're beating up a straw-man. We can also adresse the classist bit when we have it all in it's entirety.

That bit with "micro-agression" didn't exactly inspire me with confidence after all, if you call that a genuine inquiry. So here, I'll do my own analysis to get the agression pumping up for it.

The fact that you chose to completely ignore my questions and come up with petulant and weak reasons to avoid them ("you have a chip on your shoulder! it's 'twitter speak'! it's insane!!!") tells me more than any genuine answer you could've given. At the same time, it's much more complex to unravel.

I think No!! was right when they asked: "What is there to understand and acknowledge at this point"? Policies can be explained, you can't explain an emotional state, nor a perceived sense of victim hood, because those are more complex.

I may be able to answer one of your questions now, since something clicked for me recently. Recently the lines between political leaning and issues has become muddled and mixed, I've met people on the far-left who speak like people on the far-right and people use tactics of each other's side. What you're saying (and what I suspect a lot of MAGA are doing) is acting like a offended social justice activist, the type who really wants you to be cancelled.

Sorry to say, I can't have a better description for this. I said it at the start as a joke/dig, but now I think it's the truth. It's the type of offense that justifies itself. The best comparison I can make is how Republicans used to debate, there they talked about their goals or policies, and hadn't incorporated some of the left's tendencies.

(Those Republicans were also Bush supporters, so eh, you win some you lose some).

You wanted me to explain how I must "hate your demographic" after all. Truth is, I only care as much trouble is caused, & tendency towards violence, I don't have a problem with that voter base outside of it.

t's gotten more complicated with time…Especially given that a lot of people are still convinced that 2016 was stolen…

To repeat what I said earlier: people with a chip on their shoulder either learn to cool off, or they eventually die. Either way, society moves on.

(That also applies to me).

The national debt has been climbing pretty hard since 2009, with the most notable spike outside of this trend being during mid-2020 (for reasons that should be obvious). Neither the "trade war" nor elevated printing of money post-2020 altered the trend by much, if at all.

If we really want to say who's the most responsible for America's debt, I'd say the 2003 "War Against Terror" caused by Bush is the single biggest expense.

Trade wars, foreign aid (both to Israel & Ukraine), programs and policies of all from Obama, Trump and Biden are just a drop in the bucket compared to the Trillions that Bush's war cost (and the destruction it caused). 2008's fault goes even further back in presidents.

@Jill

Oh, Florida. Well, they already banned mentioning 'climate change', so it's par of the course for them.

It might be interesting to see how speech adopts to this. Japan and other countries with an emphasis on politeness are apparently very good at being circular in insults and criticisms.

Well…at least there is one place where the USA election times never fail….

The humor factor, even if the worst comes to pass, there will be shit I can laugh at

I hate to gotcha, but when it’s what the party advertises itself as
it’s hard not to
party of freedom everyone

@Spaghetto
Calling it "a riot gone bad" is a rather accurate assessment of what actually happened – some violent imagery here, some property damage there, and some politicians suddenly down one good pair of pants.

I guess you forgotten about the people who died there, unless you believe those are psyops.

Anyways, we already have Proud Boys charged with sedition and fake electors being indicted, the latter being cooperative with the DOJ so we'll be knowing much more about what Trump was scheming despite being warned by his closest allies.