You're treating her better than Elon purely because she's a woman. That's sexism
You're treating her better than Elon purely because she's a woman. That's sexism
You're saying it's valid and good for her to worry about stalkers. You are not saying the same about Elon. This is purely because she is a woman and he is a man. This is sexism.
Women are not delicate flowers who need to be protected. Men are not tough monsters who do not need protecting.
Billionaires are destructive enemies of humanity - gender doesn't affect that analysis
"Two wrongs don't make a right"
The utter irony of saying this.
The defendant's last name is "LittleJohn."
Little John was the sidekick of Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is the embodiment of the idea that, actually, two wrongs can very much make a right - stealing from the corrupt rich and giving to the poor is a good thing, actually. And breaking the law is good when the law only protects and empowers the corrupt and the wealthy
And that is exactly what this defendant did. Much like his coincidental namesake, he stole from the corrupt rich and shared what he took with everyone else. And much like the "Outlaw" Robin Hood, he was punished for it.
The only problem is that the United States isn't waiting for the Good King Richard to return and right all of our society's wrongs. Because, unlike Merry Old England, we don't have such a Good King coming to save us.
The Republican candidate is literally just an Israeli Defense Force solider.
So yeah, I guess it's accurate to call her an "incredibly pro-Israel candidate."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazi_Melesa_Pilip
"She is an Ethiopian Jew, and was born in Ethiopia. She immigrated to Israel when she was 12 years old, and later served in the Israel Defense Force's Paratroopers Brigade as a gunsmith. Pilip studied at the University of Haifa, where she earned a bachelor's degree in occupational therapy, and also at Tel Aviv University, where she earned a masters degree in diplomacy and security."
All billionaires are evil. That includes all female billionaires
Supporting Israel's genocide of Palestinians is directly harming the US' foreign policy interests.
Oligarchs control the United States. You think that's insensitive to point out?
Jews were victims of the Holocaust
Zionists were aggressors in the Nakba
Don't conflate Judaism with Zionism
Men don't run the world, oligarchs run the world
The homeless men you walk past on your way to work do not run the world
What is the point in ever defending a billionaire for any reason?
But you don't become the biggest pop star ever with a completely healthy upbringing, either, right?
Paul McCartney had, by all accounts, an idyllic childhood
The web was already flooded with human generated spam, adding AI spam to the mix hasn't really changed anything meaningful - you still can't find useful content on the vast majority of webpages.
"The river was already flooded with human generated pollution, adding truckloads of nuclear waste to the mix hasn't really changed anything meaningful - you still can't go swimming or eat the fish in the majority of waterways."
Herein lies one of the innumerable differences between democratic socialists and liberals
Probably the same thing that happened with Dobbs - ultimately, not much of anything.
It's sad. But Americans need to stand up for ourselves.
When SCOTUS abolishes Chevron deference later this year and consequently destroys the federal bureaucracy we will be finished. Hopefully the FBI can lean on SCOTUS to prevent that, though it is doubtful they are astute enough to perceive Chevron's destruction for the national security disaster that it is
Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame.
His venues have hosted Wrestlemanias, and he and Vince had a hair vs hair feud that culminated in a Wrestlemania match - Trump won.
No idea why this isn't brought up more - the WWF in the late 90s was incredibly vulgar, racist, and sexist. And Trump intentionally associated with it. Why is that never discussed?
HBO barely exists anymore
It was preclickbait articles written by alternative-adjacent freelance writers.
Aka, real people writing about real things. Some of which were vulgar. But life is vulgar. And so was the internet originally
They're obviously talking about the recession. You're ascribing malice for absolutely no reason in an attempt to distract from economic realities
Israel has been building settlements in the West Bank for years. To say nothing of their bombings in Lebanon. They are a state that consistently does not respect borders.
The correct term is "progressive."
The term is actually Democratic Socialist. Which he has repeatedly reiterated in highly televised settings for 9 years, and in less televised setting for decades before that
Though Social Democrat may be more accurate in some respects.
Either way, "progressive" is a weasel word label that neoliberals use to cloak themselves in the language of the left. See: Hillary and Pete
Please elaborate on how that meets the definition of "irony."
SCOTUS would say that the distinction is that we don't have a fundamental right under the Constitution to have a swimming pool on our property. But we do have a fundamental right to possess firearms.
As established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Any state law impacting this right would be subject to judicial scrutiny and likely strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a law impacts a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
While the right to bear arms is protected, the Supreme Court acknowledges that this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations. Restrictions such as background checks and prohibitions for certain individuals (like felons or the mentally ill) have been upheld.
However there is legal precedent that excessive economic barriers to exercising a fundamental right can be problematic. For instance, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax as it constituted a barrier to the fundamental right to vote.
Given these principles, a mandatory $300,000 insurance policy could be seen as a substantial economic barrier to exercising the right to bear arms. The Court would likely assess whether the law is justifiable under strict scrutiny. If the state argues that the law serves public safety, the Court would consider whether it's narrowly tailored to that interest.
If the requirement disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, the Court might view it as an undue burden on the fundamental right to bear arms, similar to how poll taxes were viewed as barriers to voting rights.
All of this is very stupid, and does not happen in normal liberal democracies
Enjoy president Trump
So you admit that it is an election issue?
Their point is that the broadened law does not appear to clearly and obviously cover men being raped by women.
For instance, is it rape under this new law for a woman to forcibly use her hand to jerk off a man without his consent? If not, then shouldn't it be?
Shouldn't the law state that forcible and nonconsensual contact with a penis is a crime?
I pronounce Chipotle with the same emphasis as Aristotle
The United States' legal system is regularly enforced against the poor and the weak. It is serving its actual purpose
A lot of large organizations either explicitly or tacitly support Zionism, so this isn't surprising.
It's a shame that Israel's barbarism is once again causing people who are Jewish around the world to be causelessly scapegoated and blamed for a thing that they have no direct connection with. And many people who are Jewish are anti-Zionists. But we can't let the Zionists conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism - that is a repugnant feat of hasbara propaganda
The Gaza genocide must be opposed and it is at least positive that this seems to be waking up the world to the horrors of Zionist colonialism
If that were true then the United States would have been communist by now
In 2016, Trump beat Hillary in Michigan by less than 11,000 votes
Yesterday, 101,436 Democrats voted uncommitted in a noncompetitive primary against an incumbent president after just 3 weeks of statewide organizing to advocate for an "uncommitted" vote selection
The Democrats should be extremely worried. They would need to win Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania to get 271 electoral votes without Michigan. Do we feel so confident in that result to entrust the future of American democracy to it?
Most NY Jewish people are not Israel loving Zionists.
Theyre normal people like you and me. They don't love ethnostates and genocides just because they somewhat share a religion with the perpetrators
She represents San Francisco's billionaires. She has nothing to do with people making median incomes.
So in her world, support for Israel is a universally shared opinion
Having said that, it is in Russias interest to highlight the very real genocide in Gaza. By demonstrating the obvious hypocrisy of the Western "rules-based" order, they will make it easier for Russia to commit further atrocities in Ukraine. And for China to invade Taiwan. And America's ability to credibly resist those efforts will be diminished - after all, the US enabled Israel's genocide of the Palestinians despite international condemnation, so who is America now to object to the murder of Ukrainians or the annexation of Taiwan?
"Surely the easiest thing is to let the police search my home everyday to prove them shamefully wrong."
After all, the only reason anyone would ever object to any investigation or search is if they have something to hide. Surely it can't be because they rightfully see most government investigations as outcome predetermined fishing expeditions.
Republicans are overwhelmingly Zionists who would never criticize a Democrat for supporting Israel. If anything, they would impeach Biden for not sending Israel enough bombs and guns to use to murder innocent Gazans
There are ways to insult an audience - Jeselnik does this well. Maher used to operate more in this fashion in the early-mid 00s. He really fell off during/after Obama though
It'll stop being funny when it stops being true
If Trump is not the nominee, or if he is judicially removed from the ballot, then he will still run as a write-in candidate.
And even if he doesn't run a write-in campaign, plenty of his supporters will write him in anyway
And even if he would get struck by lightning and pass away prior to November, his supporters would likely just write in Don Jr or Vivek or someone similar.
Under no circumstances is Nikki Haley ever getting even 80% of Trump supporters to vote for her in November. And if she can't get that, then there is no way she can beat Biden. A Nikki Haley victory in 2024 is not plausible
Yes they do, just not directly between the primary powers
The US invaded Vietnam and the USSR invaded Afghanistan during the Cold War. Conflicts are standard
She's obviously corrupt, as evidenced by her investment history. And her recent actions come off as overly performative and tone deaf, like when she kneeled while wearing a Kente cloth. Aka, she has bad aesthetics, and neolib voters only see politics through the lens of aesthetics
More importantly, it's probably true that Russia is involved in spreading inflammatory propaganda on every side of every hot button issue in the United States. Their goal is to divide us and to erode our establishments moral standing. So they very likely are boosting both pro Palestinian and pro genocide messaging to accomplish that goal.
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."
Based on that, the answer to your question is Yes. Not only are there two Commandments specifically about this, but it's the very first and second ones.
Unless we're arguing that Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments because Jesus created a new covenant. But most American Christians don't seem to agree with that based on their interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings
You know what else regularly grinds up and destroys children?
Poverty.
Which occurs to far more millions of people than whatever tf this princess went through