USA Politics Thread |OT| Cleaning up the town

[Himu]

I don't care about Israel. It's been nearly one hundred years since WWII. Let them sink or swim.

[benjipwns]

Is it a human right to own a firearm? Our Bill of Rights says it is. Which human rights does he respect? Which does he belittle? Oh, excuse me buttercup, we can't be friends because I don't prioritize the human rights you care about. Funny how that works. And there's your brain on leftism, if you have any noodles left after the fact.

A minor distinction but the rights in the Constitution are generally considered constitutional rights, they may or may not also be human rights. Most people, being anti-gun, would not consider the right to have a gun a human right. (And as we've seen recently nor the right to self-defense to be a human right.) Is the death penalty a violation of human rights? The Constitution has been interpreted to both ban and allow this practice. We'd assume that being put to death by the state despite being innocent should be a human right but the American Constitution currently is interpreted to allow this. For another consider the right to vote at 18? What makes 18 so special other than that's when you can go into the U.S. military which was the main argument for lowering the age?

To pick a related example (and one that's not a constitutional right) I consider conscription to be slavery and therefore a violation of human rights. Almost nobody else on the planet believes this, they think that your human rights end when the state decides it wants to fight with another state.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1605252238749839361

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Nor do I agree the business and political/activist issues are tied together.

Why not?

There isn't much of that type of politics in the business world, as it relates to race at least. Black women are graduating at a higher rate, and entering professional spaces at a higher rate. I don't see that advancement as political, at least not in the sense that we're talking about. It's moreso about opportunity as I mentioned earlier, plus black men not taking opportunities that they do have. We aren't being replaced or ignored...we've simply got to do a better job about completing school, mentoring, etc.

My view of the community and activist situation is the exact opposite. There is no education or financial barrier for entry, so it's a more even ground. Yet we are seeing the dominant black activist views right now focus on intersectionality and ignoring black men. If black men are "privileged" and the white men of the community, their needs can be ignored. After all, the black woman is more oppressed and needs more help so that's where the resources should go right. This is what I'm talking about. This is why black male mental health can be ignored or laughed about. Why no one cares about black male homelessness. Incarceration. The list goes on and on. When you silence the entire group by writing them off as patriarchal predators - or people who "dominate culture," whatever that means - it's easier to actively work against them. That's what is happening now and why I'm upset.

You don't see the advancement of women who are POC getting into the professional space as advancement? Who do you think makes the rules?

Black males are not predators.

People are victims of their upbringings.

Black women have taken it upon themselves to move past that.

I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point, I don't think we're talking about the same things. Of course black women advancing is good, and advancement in general. That's not political to me. I work at one of the largest financial firms in the country, I've hired more black women than black men. Largely because more are qualified/available. That's not because black women have "moved past" victimization. Certainly not in a world where many cast themselves as the premier victim in this country. Nor do I think the solution for black men is simply moving past that shit either. Part of it is behavioral sure. But a lot is about opportunity, and a system designed to ruin black men more than black women (incarceration).

You're right, I apologize.

 I went off on a tangent .

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1605252238749839361

Sorry Don, your legal jams sell too many newspapers so we have to make prosecutions great again

[Himu]

Is it a human right to own a firearm? Our Bill of Rights says it is. Which human rights does he respect? Which does he belittle? Oh, excuse me buttercup, we can't be friends because I don't prioritize the human rights you care about. Funny how that works. And there's your brain on leftism, if you have any noodles left after the fact.

A minor distinction but the rights in the Constitution are generally considered constitutional rights, they may or may not also be human rights. Most people, being anti-gun, would not consider the right to have a gun a human right. (And as we've seen recently nor the right to self-defense to be a human right.) Is the death penalty a violation of human rights? The Constitution has been interpreted to both ban and allow this practice. We'd assume that being put to death by the state despite being innocent should be a human right but the American Constitution currently is interpreted to allow this. For another consider the right to vote at 18? What makes 18 so special other than that's when you can go into the U.S. military which was the main argument for lowering the age?

To pick a related example (and one that's not a constitutional right) I consider conscription to be slavery and therefore a violation of human rights. Almost nobody else on the planet believes this, they think that your human rights end when the state decides it wants to fight with another state.

I know it's a distinction, but for me it's personal. The 13th amendment after all, is the law the disallowed slavery from being legally practice. So for me it's an inch between constitutional right and human right. In my perspective I view them as one and the same.

All I can assume this man means by his tweet is in defense of abortion. I definitely think it's a woman's right to abortion but definitely not under all circumstances (poverty, not wanting a baby;etc) in which case abortion becomes a human rights violation against the unborn. But for the sake of practicality and safety a mother should be able to terminate pregnancy if it's early and there's complications that will harm either her or the baby, or if she was raped. This would make me a bit of pro-choice here, a bit of pro-life there. Given this fairly centrist/moderate stance, would he friends with someone with a more moderate take on the issue or are all people against "human rights" if they don't agree with his terms for abortion like say, if he's for elective abortion or up to 9 months? This is where leftism falls on its face: its pursuit of purity completely forgets that life is messy and most people, especially Americans, don't think one specific way. His "philosophy" if you will is tantamount to only valuing people who thinks the same down to the same letter, font, and color.

People like him really think all pro-lifers are monsters that just want to subjugate women.

Of course he's an activist and a Dem strategist too.

Interesting take on conscription. Personally, as men, I find it our duty to protect our homes with our lives and wish we had mandatory service in America. We would probably be a stronger nation overall. My main criticism of conscription and being drafted are unjust wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. America since WWII has done nothing but get our noses into messes that don't need us leading to pointless wars, pointless drafts, and pointless deaths. So I think conscription is worth scrutinizing despite thinking it has merit. For example, where would we be as a nation without it given the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? Also without conscription in WWII there probably wouldn't have been a Civil Rights Movement.

[benjipwns]

I know it's a distinction, but for me it's personal. The 13th amendment after all, is the law the disallowed slavery from being legally practice. So for me it's an inch between constitutional right and human right. In my perspective I view them as one and the same.

You are simply restating your view not reading what I said. A constitutional right may or may not correspond with a human right and vice versa. Appealing to the Constitution is not appealing to a human right because not everything in the Constitution is typically considered a human right.

Interesting take on conscription. Personally, as men, I find it our duty to protect our homes with our lives and wish we had mandatory service in America. We would probably be a stronger nation overall. My main criticism of conscription and being drafted are unjust wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. America since WWII has done nothing but get out noses into messes that don't need us leading to pointless wars, pointless drafts, and pointless deaths. So I think conscription is worth scrutinizing despite thinking it has merit. For example, where would we be as a nation without it given the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? Also without conscription in WWII there probably wouldn't have been a Civil Rights Movement.

Why should I have a duty to be enslaved by the state for the states wishes at any time? Especially when I have not been convicted of a crime, the only allowance for slavery under the 13th Amendment you just mentioned?

There was no conscription during the Revolutionary War and conscription during the Civil War accomplished nothing but sending the poor to fight while exempting the rich.

Mandatory service to me seems to be the most un-American concept possible. You should have to give up years of your life simply to be a tool of the state for the state's goals and for what? What's even the larger goal supposed to be in a free society other than giving free labor to the state? Is there even a possible goal that isn't abhorrent?

[Himu]

I know it's a distinction, but for me it's personal. The 13th amendment after all, is the law the disallowed slavery from being legally practice. So for me it's an inch between constitutional right and human right. In my perspective I view them as one and the same.

You are simply restating your view not reading what I said. A constitutional right may or may not correspond with a human right and vice versa. Appealing to the Constitution is not appealing to a human right because not everything in the Constitution is typically considered a human right.

Interesting take on conscription. Personally, as men, I find it our duty to protect our homes with our lives and wish we had mandatory service in America. We would probably be a stronger nation overall. My main criticism of conscription and being drafted are unjust wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. America since WWII has done nothing but get out noses into messes that don't need us leading to pointless wars, pointless drafts, and pointless deaths. So I think conscription is worth scrutinizing despite thinking it has merit. For example, where would we be as a nation without it given the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? Also without conscription in WWII there probably wouldn't have been a Civil Rights Movement.

Why should I have a duty to be enslaved by the state for the states wishes at any time? Especially when I have not been convicted of a crime, the only allowance for slavery under the 13th Amendment you just mentioned?

There was no conscription during the Revolutionary War and conscription during the Civil War accomplished nothing but sending the poor to fight while exempting the rich.

Mandatory service to me seems to be the most un-American concept possible. You should have to give up years of your life simply to be a tool of the state for the state's goals and for what? What's even the larger goal supposed to be in a free society other than giving free labor to the state? Is there even a possible goal that isn't abhorrent?

Yeah, I'm just reiterating my viewpoint because you brought up a good point and there's really nothing to counter it with.

I don't disagree with your points on conscription. In fact I completely agree with them. And yet, I still see value in it. Let's circle back to what I said about the Civil Rights Movement. Black men had the least amount of reasons to be drafted in this country during the days of segregations height. They weren't even citizens in their own nation and they had to fight for it? And yet, what ends up happening was black men in America were treated very well in non American nations. It disarmed them and they gained a semblance of true freedom. The Civil Rights Movement in many ways started abroad in foreign borders. When these same men arrived back home only to be denied the GI Bill benefits, and segregated once again, within ten years there was a massive movement of getting rid of segregation. Do you go back to second class citizenship after being treated like a king? No sir, you do not. You could probably even trace the British Invasion of Rock and Roll to WWII and black soldiers stationed in the UK. Conscription isn't all bad. Were these men, who were treated with more dignity and respect abroad as drafted soldiers enslaved? These men, who were walked over, boot over neck, by their own country would be among the first to refuse fighting for USA but many were drafted and look how it worked out.

[benjipwns]

Were these men, who were treated with more dignity and respect abroad as drafted soldiers enslaved?

Uh, yeah, they were. That whole part where they didn't consent to it and weren't allowed to refuse.

I also don't think there's any support for the idea that they were "treated like kings" and this awoke them to their state in America either. It completely erases the known Black experience in America for something that'd be quite difficult to show any evidence of.

These men, who were walked over, boot over neck, by their own country would be among the first to refuse a draft and look how it worked out.

Might have been quite different had they been sent into combat to die en masse.

Assume, I grant the point as a single example in favor of conscription. This is supposed to be the basis for enslaving everyone in the country? That they might, twenty years down the line, benefit in an unforeseen way from their enslavement?

[Himu]

Were these men, who were treated with more dignity and respect abroad as drafted soldiers enslaved?

Uh, yeah, they were. That whole part where they didn't consent to it and weren't allowed to refuse.

I also don't think there's any support for the idea that they were "treated like kings" and this awoke them to their state in America either. It completely erases the known Black experience in America for something that'd be quite difficult to show any evidence of.

These men, who were walked over, boot over neck, by their own country would be among the first to refuse a draft and look how it worked out.

Might have been quite different had they been sent into combat to die en masse.

Awoke them to their state in America, no. Awoke them to a world where they have respect and a peaceful life, yes.

And it is absolutely questioned and considered by some historians.

https://www.history.com/news/did-world-war-ii-launch-the-civil-rights-movement

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/summer-1946-saw-black-wwii-vets-fight-freedom-home-180978538/

You don't think black men being treated well abroad and like humans wouldn't trigger them into ending segregation after they fought for their lives in the shit?

Agree to disagree.

[benjipwns]

They didn't fight for their lives, they didn't see combat, the military was massively segregated.

And no, I don't think Black men "learned" about their state by going abroad because this requires you to ignore all the writing Black people did about the injustice before other Black men went abroad. (And, yes, I'm also skeptical of the claim that they were treated uniquely in Europe and Asia.)

In any case, I don't see any support for mandatory mass conscription even if this was the case in a single example of the non-combat Black experience in WWII.

[Himu]

And no, I don't think Black men "learned" about their state by going abroad because this requires you to ignore all the writing Black people did about the injustice before other Black men went abroad

I'm not understanding this argument. It's not being said at all.

One of the articles I posted said not every black man had experienced segregation before the war.

[benjipwns]

So then there's no examples of anyone benefiting from conscription.

[Himu]

I respectfully disagree.

[benjipwns]

You just disputed the only example you came up with and still haven't outlined any possible goal that would justify it.

[Himu]

You just disputed the only example you came up with and still haven't outlined any possible goal that would justify it.

I did not dispute it. In fact it adds to my favor. Also to note, not every soldier was a draftee, but the point of serving your country and finding common cause is made.

The perversity of the United States fighting Hitler’s master-race ideology with an army segregated by race was not lost on African Americans. Military service was also a fresh humiliation for Black enlistees who had never experienced segregation. “Whether one was a graduate of Harvard Law School or was a sharecropper in Georgia with a second-grade education, he was swept into the same brutally segregated American military,” says Rawn James, Jr., author of The Double V—How Wars, Protest, and Harry Truman Desegregated America’s Military. “That united African Americans under one common cause that would have a tangible benefit for all of them.”

[benjipwns]

I did not dispute it. In fact it adds to my favor.

Black men had the least amount of reasons to be drafted in this country during the days of segregations height. They weren't even citizens in their own nation and they had to fight for it? And yet, what ends up happening was black men in America were treated very well in non American nations. It disarmed them and they gained a semblance of true freedom. The Civil Rights Movement in many ways started abroad in foreign borders. When these same men arrived back home only to be denied the GI Bill benefits, and segregated once again, within ten years there was a massive movement of getting rid of segregation. Do you go back to second class citizenship after being treated like a king? No sir, you do not. You could probably even trace the British Invasion of Rock and Roll to WWII and black soldiers stationed in the UK. Conscription isn't all bad. Were these men, who were treated with more dignity and respect abroad as drafted soldiers enslaved? These men, who were walked over, boot over neck, by their own country would be among the first to refuse fighting for USA but many were drafted and look how it worked out.

You don't think black men being treated well abroad and like humans wouldn't trigger them into ending segregation after they fought for their lives in the shit?

And no, I don't think Black men "learned" about their state by going abroad because this requires you to ignore all the writing Black people did about the injustice before other Black men went abroad

I'm not understanding this argument. It's not being said at all.

If Black men didn't learn about their status in America from being conscripted and sent abroad then you've just lost the only point you've made in favor of being conscripted. One I was willing to concede to ask how this could possibly be a justification for mass mandatory conscription.

[Himu]

I did not dispute it. In fact it adds to my favor.

Black men had the least amount of reasons to be drafted in this country during the days of segregations height. They weren't even citizens in their own nation and they had to fight for it? And yet, what ends up happening was black men in America were treated very well in non American nations. It disarmed them and they gained a semblance of true freedom. The Civil Rights Movement in many ways started abroad in foreign borders. When these same men arrived back home only to be denied the GI Bill benefits, and segregated once again, within ten years there was a massive movement of getting rid of segregation. Do you go back to second class citizenship after being treated like a king? No sir, you do not. You could probably even trace the British Invasion of Rock and Roll to WWII and black soldiers stationed in the UK. Conscription isn't all bad. Were these men, who were treated with more dignity and respect abroad as drafted soldiers enslaved? These men, who were walked over, boot over neck, by their own country would be among the first to refuse fighting for USA but many were drafted and look how it worked out.

You don't think black men being treated well abroad and like humans wouldn't trigger them into ending segregation after they fought for their lives in the shit?

And no, I don't think Black men "learned" about their state by going abroad because this requires you to ignore all the writing Black people did about the injustice before other Black men went abroad

I'm not understanding this argument. It's not being said at all.

If Black men didn't learn about their status in America from being conscripted and sent abroad then you've just lost the only point you've made in favor of being conscripted. One I was willing to concede to ask how this could possibly be a justification for mass mandatory conscription.

Black men, mostly, were well aware of the state of things in the States. But they weren't aware of how they would be treated outside of it and fighting a war abroad directly led to the Civil Rights Movement. It's pretty easy to be tunnel visioned and think,"everyone hates us" but nope, it's not the case: America does. It was not once argued that black men "didn't learn about their status in America". You are the person who brought that up. Fighting abroad gave a generation of black heroes to fight abroad and at home. The Civil Rights Movement would not have gained traction without the advocacy of black veterans. This is historical fact in light of figures such as Medgar Evers. A figure so integral he has a college named after him in Brooklyn.

As for conscription.

It leads to:

1. Greater national unity
2. More opportunity for people of different backgrounds
3. Counties with mandatory service tend to end up with higher prosperity (see: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Finland). Conscription leads to highly technologically minded societies with engaged, well educated citizenry.
4. The forced conscription in WWII forced the military to eventually desegregate years ahead the country did.

Of the 16 million soldiers in WWII, 10 million were drafted. How do you hope to get the numbers for war that is needed without conscription?

In this life we have trade offs. Conscription is one such trade off just like taxes. Or all taxes theft?

[benjipwns]

1-3 are all absurd and you'll never be able to provide proof of any of them, I highly doubt 4 is supported by the historical record and this is basically American mythology.

If you have to conscript people to fight your war, your war isn't needed. This violates consent of the governed and is making excuses for slavery. I'm skeptical of the World War II figures because the draft was enacted in peacetime before Pearl Harbor, it wasn't a reaction to insufficient volunteers. Say I grant you WWII, the only time in history the United States has ever been attacked, how does this justify mandatory mass conscription during peacetime?

And, yes, of course all taxes are theft.

[benjipwns]

Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about retiring

Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

We have now lived with the consequences of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s late-life arrogance for more than two years.

In 2014, President Barack Obama was in office and Democrats controlled the Senate, empowering them to confirm a new justice if Justice Ginsburg had left the Supreme Court. Ginsburg was a two-time cancer survivor in her 80s, the oldest member of a 5-4 Court where the right to an abortion — and perhaps even the right to vote in reasonably fair elections — teetered on a knife’s edge.

When she died in the final months of the Trump presidency, Ginsburg told her granddaughters her last desire: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” It amounted to nothing. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, a seat that until recently belonged to the greatest women’s rights lawyer in American history, is now held by her ideological opposite.

Now, eight years later, the question arises: Should Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, 68 and 62, respectively, do what Ginsburg would not?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

He no longer repeats these tweets so be aware that he may have been arrested by the Trump administration and is writing these from his prison cell.

[close]

[Himu]

1-3 are all absurd and you'll never be able to provide proof of any of them, I highly doubt 4 is supported by the historical record and this is basically American mythology.

If you have to conscript people to fight your war, your war isn't needed. This violates consent of the governed and is making excuses for slavery. I'm skeptical of the World War II figures because the draft was enacted in peacetime before Pearl Harbor, it wasn't a reaction to insufficient volunteers. Say I grant you WWII, the only time in history the United States has ever been attacked, how does this justify mandatory mass conscription during peacetime?

And, yes, of course all taxes are theft.

Conscript during peace time, is one argument, and sure I'll make that concession. But it seems you're against conscription on general and nations figured out a long time ago that a nation in peace and a nation at war are two different animals. During war time they need everyone to pitch in because everything goes to the war effort. Conscription is one such means to go about it. I brought up the WWII stat to show that without the draft we wouldn't haven't had enough to fight the Axis in WWII. This is fact. Even when America was attacked there weren't enough voluntary soldiers to win a war.

As a citizen of a country you tie yourself to a contract so to speak. If you're drafted, rescind your citizenship. End of. No one is forcing you to be enslaved.

I'll say this about conscription: it's not nice, but necessary. If I'm drafted to fight Russia I'll do so because my country wants me to and my country's liberty supercedes my own at that moment in time.  I do think cases like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq really put into question America's track record though so I don't blame anyone for questioning it.

1-3 are all absurd and you'll never be able to provide proof of any of them

https://daily.jstor.org/is-mandatory-military-service-good-for-a-country/

https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/564848-why-we-need-a-mandatory-year-of-service/

Data shows service years have led to improved education outcomes, career advancement and higher wages, and even crime reduction in some cities.

Could you imagine if USA had mandatory military service? Gangster's would have some place to go. Kids from the ghetto would get discipline and skills to take back with them. The class divide might lessen because everyone and their influencer kid would have to do military service. It would make Americans more humble and more appreciative.

Moreover mandatory service means more fit population.

It'll teach liberals that semiautomatic doesn't mean automatic lol.

[benjipwns]

But it seems you're against conscription on general

Yeah, like I said at the start.

During war time they need everyone to pitch in because everything goes to the war effort. Conscription is one such means to go about it. I brought up the WWII stat to show that without the draft we wouldn't haven't had enough to fight the Axis in WWII. This is fact. Even when America was attacked there weren't enough voluntary soldiers to win a war.

No, that's not a fact. Nowhere did you show this. You only showed what happened with a peacetime draft already in place. The United States didn't even remotely draft all the men it could have.

And you're granting that the wars are justified in the first place even as you started this conversation by pointing out just a few of the American wars that were not justified and will further on in this post reiterate this point. You can't even get close to justifying a draft without pointing to the one instance when the U.S. didn't start a war by itself and had already been drafting people.

As a citizen of a country you tie yourself to a contract so to speak. If you're drafted, rescind your citizenship. End of. No one is forcing you to be enslaved.

I'll say this about conscription: it's not nice, but necessary. If I'm drafted to fight Russia I'll do so because my country wants me to and my country's liberty supercedes my own at that moment in time.

lmao, so either you're enslaved by duty of mere birth or you have to give up your citizenship and become stateless and thus have zero protected rights anywhere on the planet because the "liberty" of the state to go to war with whoever it wants whenever it wants overrides your right not to be enslaved even when the Constitution specifically outlaws slavery.

Could you imagine if USA had mandatory military service? Gangster's would have some place to go. Kids from the ghetto would get discipline and skills to take back with them. The class divide might lessen because everyone and their influencer kid would have to do military service. It would make Americans more humble and more appreciative.

Moreover mandatory service means more fit population.

You seriously cannot believe this nonsense. You think a mere year of service, which will never have everyone being put in the military as every proposal always allows for "alternative" service, is going to do anything but steal a year from people? You think it will lessen the class divide to take a year of work away from poor kids? You think it will lessen the class divide despite every draft in history resulting in the rich finding ways out of equal service? What skills will "kids from the ghetto" possibly learn in a year if they've gained relatively nothing from the already mandatory twelve years of schooling? You think the military wants to spend a year of non-combat (because you aren't handed guns and sent out immediately) training on everyone? You think prospective college freshmen are going to gain anything from a year before they can finally hop off to college? Does that twelve years of schooling make Americans more humble and appreciative or do they fucking hate it and spend the rest of their lives wanting to mess with it constantly and probably make it even worse by attaching all their current neuroses to it?

There are absolutely no benefits to conscription without appeal to some mythical "higher purpose" horseshit. It's just nationalist jerking off about making people submit to the state so they hopefully learn their place as nothing more than a cog in the machine that can have their lives upended at anytime to serve the state's desires. It's completely absurd that we rightly can't be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag but can have everything stolen from us so we can be imprisoned or murdered simply because the state wants to kill some foreigners. Especially now that we live in an era where the state doesn't even follow the law to start its wars all over the globe and the President does this solely on a personal whim.

[Nintex]

Moreover mandatory service means more fit population

Bro did you hear about this sick work out

[benjipwns]

I also think you might forgive some vigilance on this point considering how quickly you went from championing our constitutional rights as human rights against a leftist/liberal to wanting to write an additional exception in on the hopes it might potentially be a worthwhile social policy to force everyone through it or strip their citizenship from them.

[Nintex]

During COVID many cheered for the erasure of rights and demanded the government do more. Some people just find peace and comfort in a technocratic authoritarian state. Especially if they feel they can contribute to its glory.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1605988493267595265

The war rages on

[Pissy F Benny]

 

Isn't he like a top 5 far right Republican?

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

 

  

[Nintex]

"Me and my wife like your style Jack"

[jorma]

Come on Joe, don't grab ass in public - not even if it belongs to you. 

[Himu]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/12/22/tiktok-tracks-forbes-journalists-bytedance/?sh=5b19c14d7da5

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1605988493267595265

The war rages on

Mitch is an incredible politician

[Nintex]

Come on Joe, don't grab ass in public - not even if it belongs to you. 

10% for the big guy


*hell gate noises*

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1605919631289589767

*hell gate noises*

[Himu]

But it seems you're against conscription on general

Yeah, like I said at the start.

During war time they need everyone to pitch in because everything goes to the war effort. Conscription is one such means to go about it. I brought up the WWII stat to show that without the draft we wouldn't haven't had enough to fight the Axis in WWII. This is fact. Even when America was attacked there weren't enough voluntary soldiers to win a war.

No, that's not a fact. Nowhere did you show this. You only showed what happened with a peacetime draft already in place. The United States didn't even remotely draft all the men it could have.

And you're granting that the wars are justified in the first place even as you started this conversation by pointing out just a few of the American wars that were not justified and will further on in this post reiterate this point. You can't even get close to justifying a draft without pointing to the one instance when the U.S. didn't start a war by itself and had already been drafting people.

As a citizen of a country you tie yourself to a contract so to speak. If you're drafted, rescind your citizenship. End of. No one is forcing you to be enslaved.

I'll say this about conscription: it's not nice, but necessary. If I'm drafted to fight Russia I'll do so because my country wants me to and my country's liberty supercedes my own at that moment in time.

lmao, so either you're enslaved by duty of mere birth or you have to give up your citizenship and become stateless and thus have zero protected rights anywhere on the planet because the "liberty" of the state to go to war with whoever it wants whenever it wants overrides your right not to be enslaved even when the Constitution specifically outlaws slavery.

Could you imagine if USA had mandatory military service? Gangster's would have some place to go. Kids from the ghetto would get discipline and skills to take back with them. The class divide might lessen because everyone and their influencer kid would have to do military service. It would make Americans more humble and more appreciative.

Moreover mandatory service means more fit population.

You seriously cannot believe this nonsense. You think a mere year of service, which will never have everyone being put in the military as every proposal always allows for "alternative" service, is going to do anything but steal a year from people? You think it will lessen the class divide to take a year of work away from poor kids? You think it will lessen the class divide despite every draft in history resulting in the rich finding ways out of equal service? What skills will "kids from the ghetto" possibly learn in a year if they've gained relatively nothing from the already mandatory twelve years of schooling? You think the military wants to spend a year of non-combat (because you aren't handed guns and sent out immediately) training on everyone? You think prospective college freshmen are going to gain anything from a year before they can finally hop off to college? Does that twelve years of schooling make Americans more humble and appreciative or do they fucking hate it and spend the rest of their lives wanting to mess with it constantly and probably make it even worse by attaching all their current neuroses to it?

There are absolutely no benefits to conscription without appeal to some mythical "higher purpose" horseshit. It's just nationalist jerking off about making people submit to the state so they hopefully learn their place as nothing more than a cog in the machine that can have their lives upended at anytime to serve the state's desires. It's completely absurd that we rightly can't be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag but can have everything stolen from us so we can be imprisoned or murdered simply because the state wants to kill some foreigners. Especially now that we live in an era where the state doesn't even follow the law to start its wars all over the globe and the President does this solely on a personal whim.

I also think you might forgive some vigilance on this point considering how quickly you went from championing our constitutional rights as human rights against a leftist/liberal to wanting to write an additional exception in on the hopes it might potentially be a worthwhile social policy to force everyone through it or strip their citizenship from them.

I think it might be a good thing for America. Do I see it ever happening? Nope. In previous generations it was expected that if Uncle Sam called, you came. Although I believe in human rights and the liberty of man, I also believe in fighting for those human rights. I would have joined the military after college if my hearing was better. In fact, I talked to a recruiter. It's a duel I suppose. But I can't force it on the whole population, but I do find it important. But we do live in a society and whether good or bad you really can't expect a nation to not conscript during war time, either. Whether you agree or disagree with that and want to label it enslavement all you want, you also believe all taxes to be theft, so we cannot make headway on this issue because it's one inherently about concessions and one such concession is that government will and can make anything it wants to legal or illegal. I like to consider myself a pragmatist on this. You're talking to the ideal. But the ideal wouldn't have won World War II and unfortunately in this life sometimes  force is necessary.

The good news? Everything I just described? Is precisely why you are a fool to trust government or want to rely on it.

[Potato]

Come on Joe, don't grab ass in public - not even if it belongs to you. 

10% for the big guy


*hell gate noises*

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1605919631289589767

*hell gate noises*

That picture right there...all the evidence you ever needed to confirm that there ARE lizard-headed alien overlords running the world.

[benjipwns]

In previous generations it was expected that if Uncle Sam called, you came. ... But the ideal wouldn't have won World War II and unfortunately in this life sometimes  force is necessary.

These two things cannot both be true. You're trying to lean on a single example, the only time when America was ever attacked, so you can ignore all the other times the draft was used purely to provide poor people as fodder for the state's ill-advised policy choices. We have absolutely zero idea if volunteers were enough to win World War II like all the rest of America's successful conflicts where they were.

But we do live in a society and whether good or bad you really can't expect a nation to not conscript during war time, either.

I absolutely can because that was the United States before 1917 and has been effectively the case since 1973 when it has reached the apex of its global military power.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1606080213779206151

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1606083258671693824

But why

[Himu]

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1606107325516873728

After Canada banned all guns and all the Covid policy shenanigans?! Lol  fuck off with your slippery slope

https://twitter.com/kourtneelynne/status/1606139033981272065

[Nintex]

oh shi, all caps

[Pissy F Benny]

Except Presidential Election

Trump can't spell Presidential confirmed

[Himu]

SOMEONE WRITE HIS NAME IN THEIR DEATHNOTE ALREADY FUUUUUUCK

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1606419102557519873

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1606341418485567488

Looks like Trump is revving up for the Republican primary.

[benjipwns]

(Image removed from quote.)

oh shi, all caps

If he has the evidence he should try submitting it in court another 60 times or so.

[benjipwns]

NeverTrump Republicans stop hating our rights challenge (impossible?)
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1606112681886220288

[Potato]

(Image removed from quote.)

oh shi, all caps

If he has the evidence he should try submitting it in court another 60 times or so.

ALL HE IS DOING IS USING THE TWITTER LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF "accusations are evidence" WHICH WAS WELL-ESTABLISHED BY THE #metoo MOVEMENT AND RESETERA.COM PROMINENT MEMBERS.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1606801044406665216

 

[benjipwns]

Oh come on, you know he just stole that off a Christmas Card rather than write it himself.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1605303414564524034

[benjipwns]

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1606613227281989635

[Tasty]

I stay silent on Trump's statements most of the time, but I'm gonna draw a hard line on him speaking about artistic integrity.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1607528387723120642

 

[Tasty]

Funny, he doesn't look Druish.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1607420913229889539

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/BoltzmannBooty/status/1607779936508547080

 

[benjipwns]

Meanwhile, Occam joins the Ninth Circuit and says that speech the government does not like should not be protected by the First Amendment because minorities speaking without being imprisoned or killed creates an "enduring threat" to the fabric of American democratic society:

The continued prevalence of hate speech and crimes against American citizens and residents on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability is evidence of the enduring threat of hate crimes to the fabric of American democratic society and to the safety and security of individuals.

In light of this threat, I write to underscore that the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent do not require courts always to strike down a government entity's attempts to prevent harm to their citizens

...

One aspect of those values is a central understanding of the dignity and respect that must be afforded to all citizens and people, regardless of any personal characteristics or attributes like race, religion, and sexual orientation, and the role of that respect for the individual in the healthy functioning of a multiracial, pluralistic democracy. As Justice [Brennan] stated …, we recognize "that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law." The flipside of that central understanding is that hate speech is antithetical to the values of this nation.

Hateful speech encourages hateful thoughts, which lead to hateful goals of individuals; those, in turn, lead to hateful actions and sometimes violence, resulting in harm to the public.

...

We may properly consider the incalculable harm that hate speech can cause ethnic or racial minorities in the context of school settings. Justice Thomas's words are illustrative in this evaluation: "In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend." His words counsel us to keep in mind the differing cultural and historical circumstances that might lead different groups to experience hate speech differently. Children go to school to enrich their lives and gain knowledge and skills to assist their full and productive participation in society. But consider how an African American child must feel if confronted with images sent to other students portraying the child as inferior, as less intelligent and as less human. As in the facts of the case before us, African American children may be particularly sensitive to imagery portraying them as slaves or akin to animals.

Similarly, Jewish children may be particularly sensitive to images portraying them as rats or vermin, or even insects, as was done in Nazi Germany as prelude to the Holocaust. Indeed, each ethnic, racial, or other minority group will recognize visual images or verbal phrasings that dehumanize their community and encourage hate to be visited upon them, resulting in the disruption or interference with their effective learning process. Such an inquiry must be fact-specific and unique to the circumstances of each case, but in an especially egregious example like the case before us today, the answer is clear, as expressed in the majority opinion. In my view, civilized society should not tolerate imagery encouraging hate; government bodies, consistent with the Constitution, can and should be able to take steps to stop it.

...

government officials more broadly, should not be unduly constrained in their attempts to regulate hate speech for the purpose of protecting the intended targets of said speech. This may require some refining of the Supreme Court's prior guidance in its precedents. For example, while recognizing that my views on hate speech may be less protective of speech than some current doctrine, I would conclude here that the racist characterizations and images, dehumanizing African Americans students, is sufficient to show a threat of imminent violence, fights or other attacks on African Americans

...

Refocusing our attention on the hate speech issues in this case, I conclude that "just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point." In our case, the culprits believed that they could escape the consequences of their hate speech that generated indisputable fear and intimidation in their targeted student victims because their conduct was couched in avowed "speech." If the Supreme Court decides to reassess its precedents in this area, I urge them to not blink the fact of grievous harm that hate speech causes its targets. I also urge the Court not to give any First Amendment protection for racist hate speech. For example, the Court could consider modifying the Brandenburg test to require only a probable and emerging threat of violence rather than imminent lawless action as a result of speech in order to regulate it. Regardless, I would adopt an expansive view of the ability of government officials who regulate schools to protect the future citizens they are bound to serve and educate.

[Pissy F Benny]

And there was me thinking he was prepping for the invasion of the amazon

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1607914715161808896

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1607957772535996419

 

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

Deep state war is heating up.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1607848139104620544

   

[Tasty]

Who said it: George Costanza or George Santos?