America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,073 comments
  • 1,712,829 views
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

It's a phrase often cited by conservative pundits, and others, of course, as it relates to freedom of speech.

"I support the complete and utter destruction of any entity trying to destroy my country and my way of life. I will use anyone and anything to further this goal."
-- Jesse Kelly

The conservative pundit offered these words as part of a reaction to protected speech and action by corporations with a significant presence in states where Republicans are hate-****ing the voting public with legislation that at best restricts voters' ability to have their voices heard through the democratic process and at worst enables Republican legislative majorities to take action against election results when a majority of the voting public casts a vote that runs counter to the interest of Republicans.




Very fascism-forward rhetoric, there. Haute totalitarianism.

If one takes the view that the USA is the Constitution - as the USA itself is merely a common federal machinery that allows 50 territories to function as one, while retaining their identities, as described in the Constitution - then it would be easy to draw the conclusion that an attack on the Constitution is in fact an attack on the USA.

From there it would be easy to draw the conclusion that someone who wants to tear up the First Amendment is an entity who is trying to destroy the USA and Americans' way of life.

One assumes then that Jesse Kelly will be supporting the complete and utter destruction of Jesse Kelly.
 
Last edited:
If one takes the view that the USA is the Constitution - as the USA itself is merely a common federal machinery that allows 50 territories to function as one, while retaining their identities, as described in the Constitution - then it would be easy to draw the conclusion that an attack on the Constitution is in fact an attack on the USA.

From there it would be easy to draw the conclusion that someone who wants to tear up the First Amendment is an entity who is trying to destroy the USA and Americans' way of life.

One assumes then that Jesse Kelly will be supporting the complete and utter destruction of Jesse Kelly.

You're probably aware of this, but this is a formal logical proof technique called proof by contradiction, or reductio ad impossibile. You have formally demonstrated that Jesse Kelly is wrong by taking the assumption that Jesse Kelly is right and then showing "not Jesse Kelly" as a conclusion.
 
It's always struck me as somewhat oxymoronic that Amendments cannot possibly be changed...
You change something enshrined in the Constitution, including Constitutional Amendments, by proposing and ratifying Amendments to the Constitution.

The Twenty-third Amendment would be subject to change in the event that D.C. is granted statehood and its residents representation comparable to other States. That change would be enshrined in a subsequent Amendment.
 
Last edited:
The Twenty-third Amendment would be subject to change in the event that D.C. is granted statehood and its residents representation comparable to other States. That change would be enshrined in a subsequent Amendment.

...at least under certain implementations of that, under others it would not need to change.
 
Okay, interest piqued. Would you elaborate?

Obviously it's somewhat controversial, but the proposal is to shrink the federal district. So we would still have a non-state seat of federal government within the new state of Washington D.C.

"Article I of the Constitution is not an obstacle," she said. "As H.R. 51 makes clear, a 'federal district' will remain for the federal government, its buildings and its workings; and the rest of the area, where people live, will become the 51st state."
https://www.kpcw.org/post/stronger-...statehood-fight-returns-capitol-hill#stream/0

That's not the only concept for making DC a state, but that particular one doesn't run afoul of 23A.
 


Oh lordy. After Trump doing his best to provoke open war with North Korea and Iran, I hardly think that this is something to be complaining about. If the American military wasn't flying around the world invading, I mean, liberating countries and installing puppet governments then maybe less people would be angry enough at them to actually commit acts of terrorism.

And while 9/11 was a massive shock at the time, after a country loses 500,000+ people to COVID I think it should probably adjust the scale for what is considered a staggering tragedy. There was a period there where there was a 9/11's worth of people dying every day, but Lizzle Grizzle wasn't that fussed about putting a stop to that.
 
Oh lordy. After Trump doing his best to provoke open war with North Korea and Iran, I hardly think that this is something to be complaining about. If the American military wasn't flying around the world invading, I mean, liberating countries and installing puppet governments then maybe less people would be angry enough at them to actually commit acts of terrorism.

And while 9/11 was a massive shock at the time, after a country loses 500,000+ people to COVID I think it should probably adjust the scale for what is considered a staggering tragedy. There was a period there where there was a 9/11's worth of people dying every day, but Lizzle Grizzle wasn't that fussed about putting a stop to that.
At least he's consistent; he opposed the Syria withdrawal in 2019. Of course, the situation in Syria was likely more volatile then than the situation in Afghanistan is now. The fearmongering is a bit much, though.

I don't really want forces over there. At the same time, I don't really support withdrawal if the situation is volatile. It certainly doesn't seem to be, and I agree with your apparent assertion that there are currently more pressing matters, re: COVID.

It may be moot anyway. A not insignificant part of me wonders if this is merely posturing from the Biden administration.

...

Apparently Bernie Madoff has died. Womp-womp.

Edit:

 
Last edited:


Here's an additional nugget. Among the signatories to this complaint are ten of the attorneys general (Steve Marshall, Alabama; Leslie C. Rutledge, Arkansas; Ashley Moody, Florida; Derek Schmidt, Kansas; Lynn Fitch, Mississippi; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota; Sean D. Reyes, Utah; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia) who supported Texas' AG Ken Paxton's performative litigation against Pennsylvania and three other states over unfounded allegations of election impropriety. The United States Supreme Court wouldn't entertain the suit. Paxton is also signatory to the complaint.


You change something enshrined in the Constitution, including Constitutional Amendments, by proposing and ratifying Amendments to the Constitution.

The Twenty-third Amendment would be subject to change in the event that D.C. is granted statehood and its residents representation comparable to other States. That change would be enshrined in a subsequent Amendment.

...at least under certain implementations of that, under others it would not need to change.

Okay, interest piqued. Would you elaborate?

Obviously it's somewhat controversial, but the proposal is to shrink the federal district. So we would still have a non-state seat of federal government within the new state of Washington D.C.


https://www.kpcw.org/post/stronger-...statehood-fight-returns-capitol-hill#stream/0

That's not the only concept for making DC a state, but that particular one doesn't run afoul of 23A.
I just read through the 23rd again and I completely agree with Danoff here. If Washington were given statehood as per HR51 then DC would still exist and the 23rd amendment would still apply unchanged. Somebody would still live and vote in DC I'm sure. But HR51 repeals the 23rd amendment's law from the US Code and then considers amending/repealing the amendment as a whole which is unnecessary as far as I can tell. Obviously leaving the 23rd in place would mean an extremely small number of people would have huge power in voting for President, the same number of delegates as Washington and Wyoming, but I can't decide if that's really a problem. I understand why HR51 attempts to strike down the 23rd, but neither method, either striking it down or simply leaving it, is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. Republicans are absolutely ignoring the fact that HR51 does address the 23rd amendment issue. The obvious goal, especially with allowing DC residents to vote in the "state of most recent domicile", is to repeal the 23rd and leave DC as a non-voting seat of government but I don't feel it needs to be that way. But if DC still had its vote, it could become a hotbed for Republicans to live there and get their free Republican delegate to cancel out Washington's Democratic delegate. So there is definitely some politics baked into this bill.
 
I understand why HR51 attempts to strike down the 23rd, but neither method, either striking it down or simply leaving it, is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. Republicans are absolutely ignoring the fact that HR51 does address the 23rd amendment issue.
But "unconstitutional" sounds serious, and using the word, even where it does not apply, makes things sound bad. It joins "fake news" and "witch hunt" as words that have legitimate meaning but are used by the right simply as a label for things they don't like.
 
I just read through the 23rd again and I completely agree with Danoff here. If Washington were given statehood as per HR51 then DC would still exist and the 23rd amendment would still apply unchanged. Somebody would still live and vote in DC I'm sure. But HR51 repeals the 23rd amendment's law from the US Code and then considers amending/repealing the amendment as a whole which is unnecessary as far as I can tell. Obviously leaving the 23rd in place would mean an extremely small number of people would have huge power in voting for President, the same number of delegates as Washington and Wyoming, but I can't decide if that's really a problem. I understand why HR51 attempts to strike down the 23rd, but neither method, either striking it down or simply leaving it, is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. Republicans are absolutely ignoring the fact that HR51 does address the 23rd amendment issue. The obvious goal, especially with allowing DC residents to vote in the "state of most recent domicile", is to repeal the 23rd and leave DC as a non-voting seat of government but I don't feel it needs to be that way. But if DC still had its vote, it could become a hotbed for Republicans to live there and get their free Republican delegate to cancel out Washington's Democratic delegate. So there is definitely some politics baked into this bill.

I think the legislature could comfortably make DC a state and shrink the federal district, leaving the potential electoral issue to be cleaned up on its own. For a brief period of time, if we were to have a presidential election, a small number of people might get a large number of electoral votes. But that situation wouldn't last long, as there would be bipartisan support for amending 23A, which would pass quickly. I'd suggest that the legislature ignore any constitutional electoral concerns for making DC a state, and then allow a bipartisan effort to clean up any issues that arise afterward. Negotiating that part in conjunction with DC statehood seems stupid, since both sides would want the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Hey look, a witch!

tenor.gif
 
This is why I support defunding the police. They’re a greater threat to your property than burglars.


And if you’re clutching your pearls about crime spiraling out of control if the police take a powder, just remember that major crime rates fell in NYC when the police attempted a boycott of Mayor DeBlasio by not engaging in petty policing.
https://reason.com/2017/09/26/study-finds-nypd-slowdown-in-petty-law-e/
 
This is why I support defunding the police. They’re a greater threat to your property than burglars.


And if you’re clutching your pearls about crime spiraling out of control if the police take a powder, just remember that major crime rates fell in NYC when the police attempted a boycott of Mayor DeBlasio by not engaging in petty policing.
https://reason.com/2017/09/26/study-finds-nypd-slowdown-in-petty-law-e/

Why defund? How does defunding correct rights violation by way of extrajudicial property seizure?
 
This is why I support defunding the police. They’re a greater threat to your property than burglars.


And if you’re clutching your pearls about crime spiraling out of control if the police take a powder, just remember that major crime rates fell in NYC when the police attempted a boycott of Mayor DeBlasio by not engaging in petty policing.
https://reason.com/2017/09/26/study-finds-nypd-slowdown-in-petty-law-e/


While I very much agree with defunding the police (to a point), I feel like this is more a legislative issue. If anything, defunding the police but not addressing the legality of civil forfeiture has the (probably unlikely) potential to make civil forfeiture more commonplace, due to police having the option of selling seized assets and putting the money from it back into the department.
 
While I very much agree with defunding the police (to a point), I feel like this is more a legislative issue. If anything, defunding the police but not addressing the legality of civil forfeiture has the (probably unlikely) potential to make civil forfeiture more commonplace, due to police having the option of selling seized assets and putting the money from it back into the department.
I don't know how you define defunding the police, but even if I look at the most generous notion, unbundling, something I'm inclined to support, I don't see it as addressing lawful asset seizure without trial. Lawful as it may be, it isn't just. It's a tool that needs to be removed from their belt.

Some of these initiatives seem very much like punishment when what's really needed is reform.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how you define defunding the police, but even if I look at the most generous notion, unbundling, something I'm inclined to support, I don't see it as addressing lawful asset seizure without trial. Lawful as it may be, it isn't just. It's a tool that needs to be removed from their belt.

I define it is re-routing funds for things that perhaps don't need as much money or are a waste (I often used Joey D's example of a police vehicle depot that has a bunch of unused cruisers, as St. Pete also has that, albiet much, much smaller), and moving that money towards things like better training for officers, better pay and personal resources, and giving officers an option to call a service that may be more appropriate for a particular call, which thereby creates a need for those service to train people on how to do their job while working with police. I feel like it's a good way to have better trained personnel in a general sense, and can potentially create more jobs.

Civil forfeiture, however, needs to be straight-up abolished, or at least made much, much harder to pull off.

Yes, I am again too lazy to change the formatting.

Some of these initiatives seem very much like punishment when what's really needed is reform.

Agreed. It's actually kind of the frustrating aspects of talking about the defund the police effort, because, unfortunately, people are going to give more attention to the unreasonable people who yell for just straight up taking money from major police departments with no care given to the aftermath.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. It's actually kind of the frustrating aspects of talking about the defund the police effort, because, unfortunately, people are going to give more attention to the unreasonable people who yell for just straight up taking money from major police departments with no care given to the aftermath.

I feel like the most extreme argument that should actually be given credence is that the current policing systems are so broken that they should be abolished and replacement structures built from the ground up. And even that is not "take away their money and then ignore it".

If there are people saying that, it's because they feel so hurt by the current systems that they just want to see it burn to the ground. And honestly, there's probably a fair amount of people who could understandably feel that way and it would be hard to hold it against them. The current police system has done so much damage to so many people that it's only fair to allow those people some room to vent, while calmly accepting that those extreme emotionally driven cries for action aren't actually going to be part of the solution. Good government is calm and considered, not made in the heat of the moment.
 
I feel like the most extreme argument that should actually be given credence is that the current policing systems are so broken that they should be abolished and replacement structures built from the ground up. And even that is not "take away their money and then ignore it".

Policing in America does need an overhaul for sure. However, what I'm afraid of is the more...militant side of the Defund the Police movement just completely overshadowing the more reasonable people trying to come up with an actual, achievable solution. That, and the idiots that peddle lies to the "opposition" (my airquotes) so that that task becomes even more difficult.

If there are people saying that, it's because they feel so hurt by the current systems that they just want to see it burn to the ground. And honestly, there's probably a fair amount of people who could understandably feel that way and it would be hard to hold it against them. The current police system has done so much damage to so many people that it's only fair to allow those people some room to vent, while calmly accepting that those extreme emotionally driven cries for action aren't actually going to be part of the solution.

Agreed. In a sense I'm grateful that, as a minority, I haven't had a negative run in yet, but I know that scores of people are not as lucky, and that this is something that I feel like I need to be a part of in some capacity, because it does affect me.

Good government is calm and considered, not made in the heat of the moment.

*Insert "This Is America" by Childish Gambino*

I do agree btw, but the cynic in me immediately wanted to post that music video. :lol: Unfortunately at the current moment I don't have enough faith in my government overall to be calm and considered in any capacity.
 
Florida ‘Anti-Rioting’ Law Will Make It Much Easier To Run Over Protesters With Cars

vice.com
As of Monday in Florida, a gathering of three or more people can be labeled a “riot”—and if they’re blocking the road and you feel frightened, it’s generally OK to run them over with a car. Historic monuments, however—Confederate and otherwise—receive special protection under the law.

These are just some of the stipulations created by Florida’s new controversial anti-protest bill, which Gov. Ron DeSantis, flanked by law enforcement officers at the Polk County Sheriff's Office, signed into law on Monday.

“It’s the strongest anti-rioting pro-law enforcement piece of legislation in the country. There’s nothing even close,” DeSantis said at a press conference. “We’re not going to end up like Portland.”

The “Combatting Public Disorder Bill,” or HB1, is the latest attempt to crack down on First Amendment activity in the wake of the nationwide protest movement that was triggered by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Florida’s bill, as with those introduced in 45 states this year, has been widely criticized by civil liberties groups who fear that the law will be used disproportionately to criminalize Black-led protests against police brutality and racial injustice.

Floyd’s death also sparked a conversation about the limitations of police reform, and galvanized the “Defund the Police” movement.

DeSantis made shutting that conversation down a centerpiece of his legislative agenda.
The bill intends to prevent local governments from taking steps to defund law enforcement by making them liable for any damage that occurs during a protest.

“Obviously in the state of Florida, we’re not going to do that under my leadership, but if the local government were to do that, that would be catastrophic and have terrible consequences for their citizens, and so this bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.

He added that local officials could also be held liable if damage occurred after they gave “stand down” orders to police. “That’s a dereliction of duty,” DeSantis said.

Florida’s new law also creates civil immunity for people who drive into crowds of protesters, meaning they won’t be sued for damages if people get hurt or killed if they claim self-defense (but they could still face criminal charges). Democrats asked their GOP colleagues whether the neo-Nazi who drove into a crowd of protesters during the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville could have claimed immunity or self-defense. “That person rammed a vehicle into those people to hurt them,” GOP state Sen. Danny Burgess responded, according to the Orlando Sentinel. “He wasn’t defending himself.”

This comes after an alarming surge of vehicle-ramming attacks against protesters across the country. Between May and October 2020, there were over 100 incidents of drivers going into crowds of protesters—about half of which were confirmed to be intentional, according to research by Ari Weil, a terrorism researcher at the University of Chicago's Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

At least eight of those incidents took place in Florida. For example, a man drove his car into a small group of protesters near downtown Gainesville and pointed a gun at them last May. In a separate incident in Tallahassee, a man accelerated his pick-up truck into a group of protesters.

“We also have penalties for people who commandeer highways,” said DeSantis. “You’re driving home from work and all the sudden you have people out there shutting down a highway. There needs to be swift penalties, that just cannot be something that can happen.”

At least five other states, including Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington are considering similar bills which would extend some degree of liability to individuals who drive through protesters. Oklahoma’s bill goes further than Florida’s new law, by proposing immunity for criminal charges for people who drive into protesters.

Florida’s HB1, which received strong GOP backing and passed the Republican-led Senate on Thursday with a 23-17, also ramps up penalties against protest participants. Anyone who “willingly participated” in a “riot”—now defined as a protest involving three or more people—could be charged with a third-degree felony, which is punishable by up to five years in prison.

It also makes “mob intimidation”—defined as two or more people trying to compel someone to “assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint against his or her will”—a misdemeanor.

“People sitting outside eating outside a restaurant and you see this crazed mob circle around them and start screaming and really intimidating them,” said DeSantis. “I'm sorry that's not acceptable. I'm sorry you’re going to be held accountable, mind your own business.”

The bill also prevents people arrested for protest-related offenses from being bailed out of jail until their first court appearance.

Unsurprisingly, the bill has not been received well by Florida’s protest community—or by Democrat-leaning local governments. “For me as an organizer, I don’t want anyone to get a felony,” activist Jalessa Blackshear told the Tampa Bay Times during a protest in nearby St Petersburgh over the weekend. “I don’t want anyone to go to jail.”

“This bill is a direct effort to silence the Movement for Black Lives and the uprisings last summer following the police killing of George Floyd,” said Gainesville Commissioner Gail Johnson in a statement from Local Progress, a network of progressive-minded elected officials. “It keeps no one safe, and undercuts our liberty.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers elsewhere are also seeking extreme solutions to curb protest activity in their states.

In Minnesota, which is again the epicenter for protests against racial injustice following the death of Duante Wright, a Black man, at the hands of a white police officer, a Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill that would withhold student financial assistance from anyone who was convicted of a protest-related crime.The bill also proposes withholding other types of state-funded aid, including food stamps, rent assistance and unemployment benefits.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't really thought about this until today, but isn't it nice to have gone three months - literally a full quarter of a year - without an insane buffoon spaffing his every thought, no matter how banal or who it's directed at, onto social media for nine hours a day?

It's almost... meditatively quiet.
 
I hadn't really thought about this until today, but isn't it nice to have gone three months - literally a full quarter of a year - without an insane buffoon spaffing his every thought, no matter how banal or who it's directed at, onto social media for nine hours a day?

It's almost... meditatively quiet.
"Too quiet..." -- Senator John Cornyn
 
Back