84
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

Why do we care what this dumb fuck thinks? He doesn't even know what socialism is our Marxism.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Ignore influential conservatives at your peril. They're the ones who create narratives.

[-] brimnac@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Yup. It’s like clockwork.

That’s why it’s interesting to hear conservatives before their spin machine goes to town. Slightly different topic, but not really.

Once you know what the conservative talking heads are saying it is easy to provide fact based evidence that counters their narrative before they start using it in normal conversations.

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

Know your enemy, especially since my experience to them is a criminal offense. If we don't know their thoughts on the matter we can't begin to unravel it for the indoctrinated.

[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

14th amendment: passed Congress on June 13th, 1866.
Das Kapital was first published in 1867.
You have to be really ahead of the game to build a gateway for something that is published next year, in another language, and on another continent when the fastest form of travel between the two took weeks.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It was done with young Tom Edison's steam-powered time machine.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Sadly the machine was destroyed during the battle of wizards at Menlo Park. That's how we ended up with evil Edison taking control in this timeline.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tesla, Edison was a very successful capitalist but not an inventor himself. People will say the modern lightbulb but that was patented by his company not invented by him.

My favorite is the story of Edison calling Tesla out to fix iirc generators of Westinghouse design. Tesla then fixed it and was never paid because like Trump Edison often refused to pay debts.

Ed: you can downvote but it will still be just as true with our without.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

My favorite (actually true) story was that Edison possibly had a French inventor disappeared on a train. The man had been hard at work and created a supposedly superior prototype movie projector that would surpass Edison's fledgling efforts. He was on that train, with his machine, to attempt to gain capital from investors and commercialize the product. He and the machine were never seen again.

Probably wouldn't have happened if good Edison had still been around...

Also, Edison is just Elon Musk. Possibly reincarnated by use of a Lazarus machine.

[-] twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Obviously the authors were in communication with each other while writing. /s

[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

After reading this article, Kirk has a very clearly superficial understanding of the 14th amendment. Some people here may have heard along the way something along the lines of "we're a collection of soverign states" or some bullshit like that. And that mostly true pre-14th amendment, the 14th amendment was the thing that changed that.

Remember, we fought a civil war and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment are the ramifications of that war. The 13th answered, finally, the whole 3/5th comprimise thing that the Constitution indicated that Congress was supposed to fix sometime in 1808. Obviously "kicking the can" has been a tradition of Congress for quite some time.

provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article

And the 15th amendment grants Congress the power to slap State laws that try to enforce themselves via racial pretexts. Remember, Congress cannot directly legislate elections with the exceptions that are carved out in the Constitution. State's like to pass all manner of laws with justifications like "it's for the children" or whatever and the entire point of Courts looking at things Congress brings to bear is to check for "pretextual" arguments. Pretextual arguments being ones that "we say it's for this purpose, but in reality it is for this other purpose that we're not allowed to pass laws on".

Case in point, Tennessee's recent "Pride parade ban" law that was supposed to be "for the safety of the children" was tossed out as pretextual and no Federal Judge could find in the text how the law wouldn't be abused to rob people of their first amendment right and there were lots of "clues" that robbing a particular group of people of their free speech was the actual intent. Remember, we've got 200+ years of history of States saying one thing and actually doing the other, it's not a recent invention and something the Federal Courts have to always be on the look out for.

So that out of the way the 14th amendment changes fundamentally how the actual law is applied to people. Which is interesting that Kirk is all about changing it because it's literally the 14th Immunities clause that was used in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strengthen the 2nd amendment's right to gun ownership. So, for all the folks saying we need to review the 2nd if we're going to review the 14th, no worries, because that would become automatic in a review of the 14th since SCOTUS has now connected the two.

The 14th amendment is so litigated because it fundamentally changes how the US operates. It empowers the Federal government while depowers the States, when you take the context of the Civil War into account, the reason why Congress thought the 14th was a good idea becomes clearer.

So the vast litigation of the 14th is to ask the question, "How much power did the 14th hand over to the Federal government and remove from the States?" And we're still answering the multitude of questions coming from that. So Kirk wondering why so much gets answered by "the 14th Amendment!" is because he lacks understanding what the 14th does and why it was pitched in the first place.

There's always going to be a power struggle between Federal and State governments. For the first part of the US, deferrence was given to the States and it resulted in a war. So to fix that issue and hopefully prevent yet another war, that giving the States benefit of the doubt was "slightly" removed and penalities for those trying to "overthrow" the Federal system were explicitly enumerated. Because, those at the time understood, our form of government has this power struggle between Federal and State and that one civil war wouldn't be the end of that struggle.

Does the 14th answer all the problems with that struggle? No, of course not. But it puts the ball in the Federal government's hands first to solve it going forward. Because putting it first in the various States to solve....well it just didn't quite work out the way we had all hoped. And of course, over the course of history we've had various flavors of Judges who want to apply that wisdom to various cases to various degrees. The power struggle between Federal and State still exists, the entire point it to have an avenue to resolve it without a need for breaking out the horses and cannons.

Now I say all of this and let's all take a quick look around to see how well that's going. Yeap. That's why Judges matter. But back to the subject at hand, Kirk is trying to read the 14th without any context or understanding of application, which that's what we would expect from a fifth grader reading it for the first time. So we all should treat Kirk's opinion as such.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, well you know the framers of the Constitution obviously didn't mean any of that. All those historical facts are just alternative facts that are getting in my way of reality. Historical context is just a Marxist plot to make America socialist and something about ANTIFA and illegal immigrants. /s

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago

Failed College Dropout Pretends to be Constitution Expert

[-] Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 16 points 1 year ago

Oh we're going to parse the language of the constitution mow? Let's start with the 2nd amendment.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

Oh the constitution is Marxist now? Ok let’s rewrite it then. Starting from the top and definitely don’t skip #2.

[-] Dressedlikeapenguin@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We didn't have, and the founding fathers didn't want, a standing army. Too many French & English kings used them to suppress their people.

[-] TheMusicalFruit@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I’ve seen the memes of this guy, but never saw a video of him until now. The memes nailed his face to head ratio perfectly.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Stop Streisand effecting these morons

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

The only time I want to see this man is when he's affected by tiny face syndrome.

[-] some_guy@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

So all the time?

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Does anyone else just lock onto the panicked and insecure look these guys carry in their eyes when they spout this absolute bullshit? This guy, Ben Shapiro, and others, ALL get this same insane stare like their head is going to explode when they go on these rants that make zero sense. The darting eyes, constant shuffling in posture, and shaky voice that sounds like it will crack from stress at any moment. It's so pathetic and creepy, I almost feel bad haha

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Is it just me or does he look like someone drew a derpy face on a balloon and let out half the air?

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They say every time someone sees his face for the first time, it gets .000000001% smaller.

[-] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 2 points 1 year ago

My first thought was "where the fuck is his chin?". Your description is spot on.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Never even heard of this guy.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Charlie Kirk rages….

Good.

[-] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago
[-] pottedmeat7910@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

He really is odd looking, isn't he.

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
84 points (86.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers
2084 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS