“Now, I’m not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist,”
What a legend, come on Florida. Gillium is the obvious choice.
“Now, I’m not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I’m simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist,”
Just notice tomorrow’s Hesse state election of Germany could be another crowning moment for the Green Party , as early poll suggests The Greens could form a coaltion government with SPD … defeating Mekkel 's party…
The Greens has slowly build up as the Party of Reasoning in Germany and Germany’s national poll rank them to 2nd place … It will be interesting if Enviromentalist can trully govern a country one day
It’s always a pity America so rarely has third and fourth options present in these debates, which means it will keep going round in the familiar circles.
I’m in love with that guy
Wish I lived in Florida so I could vote for him.
As a person and politically I am appalled at this latest example of our European disregard for the free speech of non-elites.
I also mostly agree with this article and it is high time we do a re-examination of our “free” speech laws and the current international and European human rights treaties or at least re-weigh the judicial value of free speech against freedom of religion and public order (or more aptly authorities tendency to favour a negative “peace” over true debate in an increasing number of cases). But then, to paraphrase the British judge Denning: “the timorous souls” usually carry the day.
I also liked that article a lot. I’m still very much on the side of, “the answer to bad speech is more speech.”
Didn’t read that article, but read many similar. I think putting your foot down on speech like this is a big cause of tensions and intolerance towards muslims. But at the same time I think genuine hate speech shouldn’t be tolerated. Again didn’t read the article, but for example I believe saying something like I believe the prophet Muhammad was immoral/he was a murderer/a pedophile(common things I’ve heard claimed about him) shouldn’t be illegal. But things like Muhammad was evil just like all muslims are/Muhammad was a pedophile just like all muslims should be.
The hard part is keeping things objective and unbiased. But I believe my first set of examples can open up discussion, prevent or at least reduce tension as it gives people an outlet to express themselves in a none-violent, none-harmful way. Whereas my second set of examples spreads hatred towards muslims as a whole, and does the opposite, prevents discussion, promotes tensions and is harmful. I think it’s about context too though. There’s a big difference between hate speech in public and posting on twitter or something. Then there’s factors such as how influential the person who said it is(and therefore things such as how many people are likely to hear/read what they said, how much power they have etc. Hate speech coming from a prominent activist for example will have more impact, more weight than a random unknown person for example). But anyhoo, that’s just how I feel .
Shhhh, give it a day.
They’ll say he’s mentally ill
Give it more time before we make insensitive comments about how the shooter will be referenced.
Innocent people were murdered by a terrorist, and we should give those victims and their loved ones the decency of at least a few days before making comments like this.
Trump has confirmed to Axios News that he intends to change the American Constitution by Executive Order. In the near future, he will be issuing an Executive Order that disallows Citizenship at Birth guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
While most believe this is another baseless “Midterm Election Ploy” designed to play to his base, the question remains how anyone can support a President who openly and publicly advocates for changing the Constitution by fiat.
If any Trump supporters can justify changing the constitution like this, I would sincerely like to hear from them on this.
I did say to give it a day, did I not?
I never said they weren’t innocent, I agree with what your saying, but how does what I said have correlation to what you’re saying? Let me paraphrase. Give one more day until the media says the shooter is mentally ill.
Why? If I was part of the victims family I would want to know straight away the condition of the killer. If they were mentally ill, or if they were perfectly sane and just fueled by hate. Again though, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
Is…is that even possible?
Doesn’t he need legislative approval first? Something like a two-thirds majority?
It is (technically, but not legally possible), it’s called a coup d’etat and those are always a possibility. Now I think the US system is still strong enough to weather it…this time. But as @Havenstone, among others, pointed out executive “coups” have been features of strong presidential systems for a long time now. . You can also simply Google Juan Linz who was a scholar who did extensive work on this topic. Apologies for not linking directly but due to the vagaries of academic publishing I couldn’t find a freely accessible version of the original work to link to. I did read it back in college and it’s an illuminating read.
It shouldn’t be and if he tries it, there might be a constitutional crisis - this alone is just another way he is proving to be unqualified to be President, imo. ymmv. It just amazes me that he is even throwing this out there without unqualified push-back from his supporters.
The very idea that the Republic was founded upon is under assault by actions of this nature.
America has moments of greatness in potential to be genuinely great that’s the dream Anyway. Do you want to go that rabbit hole of complex indigenous relations.
Changing the words themselves requires far more effort than simply reinterpreting them and changing how they are defined, especially if the courts sign off on that reinterpretation. The political left has already set the precedent by creatively changing the existing definition of words in the constitution numerous times to achieve their aims. That said, while the day may well come when conservative justices abandon strict constructionism to fight fire with fire the way Trump desires, we are still far from that point. As a result this is for the moment purely a bit of election theatrics to rile up his base and get them out to vote. Any such executive order would not only be opposed by judges appointed by Democratic Presidents, but also the strict constructionists he’s appointed as well. So it would invariably get struck down.
This goes in there any group of people that want power. For example by time of the War for independent indigenous tribes and the north and south east have a balance of powers set up of independence and dependence with the Imperial powers they’ve been there for 300 years by that point.
This is not even going into how monstrous imperial Japan is they are objectively worst of the Nazi how do that! There incredibly reaction apologetic about it.
Also trumps trying to get rid of birthright citizenship this is not even going into Brazilian Election.
Not to mention that sometimes language and concepts change, my great-grandfather would, were he still alive today, not directly associate me and other men like myself with the word “gay”.
The uncomfortable truth though is that due to the inherent “conservative bias” of the law and the fact that it is almost perpetually behind the times it is always much more of an obstacle to the more progressive currents or politics, and they typically tend to be found more on the left side of politcs, though not exclusively the irony being that our current Conservatives still call themselves “liberals” and their party was indeed founded once upon a time to break stifling Pillarisation era business regulations (ye, hard to believe the party of mr. Rutte and big business were at one time the champions of anti-monopoly and “unobstructed market” type regulations) and foster greater social freedom (even if that latter was the sort of classical, liberal freedom you need to be relatively well-off to be able to enjoy in the first place).
Likewise Canada’s Conservatives, as evidenced by their party name, progressive conservatives used to espouse at least some limited set of progressive policies too, I think.
In any case, progressives of all stripes are far more likely to encounter legal obstacles implementing their preferred policies and thus have a concomitantly greater desire to both change the laws and get creative with their interpretations on occasion.
Lastly I do find it worrying that Conservative jurists in the US and to a lesser extent on this side of the pond want to move us back to an era of purely theoretical conceptions of freedom and human rights and the Lochner era or perhaps even the “gilded age” of business regulation.
I’m very leery of creative redefinitions. For example, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the US Senate wanted to get around a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s appellate court judges who the Republicans considered too extreme, they lacked the 60 needed votes to break a filibuster. Changing the rule would have required 67 votes in the Senate which they didn’t have either. So instead Reid creatively redefined 60 to mean 51 and passed that creative redefinition of the existing rule on a simple majority vote. This really really infuriated Senate Republicans which set up both the Merrick Garland payback once the Republicans gained a majority in the US Senate and the subsequent use of that very same precedent to end the Supreme Court filibnuster when Democrats attempted to filibuster the approval of Neil Gorsuch.
Considering the Republicans apparently considered even Garland “too extreme” what the US Republicans consider “too extreme” should maybe just be read as not reactionary enough. I mean even Reagan and certainly Nixon would no longer even fit in with the modern Republican Party…and we shouldn’t mention Lincoln at all.
This meant the Dems were between a rock and a hard place, they could have left those spots open, so the Republicans would appoint hardliners after a couple of years anyway or they could essentially do what the Republicans wanted and appoint ultra-conservative/reactionary judges themselves. I can see how neither of those two would have been acceptable.
It probably did do damage in the long run, I agree on that, but I think considering the US Republicans that might have happened in any case had the Dems ever dared to use the same tactics and refuse to confirm any Republican appellate judges a couple years down the road.