That would require the federal election committee to violate the constitution by putting him on the ballot, then the same for every State government. This is an order of magnitude beyond the attempts to keep him off the ballots for Jan 6, as he was never convicted of or tried for it. The Supreme Court would need to destroy the constitution to rule favorably on it, and thus remove all their own power as the third branch of government.

The US is not yet as corrupt as the CCP or Russia, and Trump doesn’t have the political and personal capital of Xi or Putin to rewrite the constitution to allow more/unlimited presidential terms.

I do see the possibility, but if it is true then the only way to stop it is armed insurrection against a tyrant. Trump would have to dismantle the courts, blatantly violate the constitution, and fundamentally alter the government. The military would have to go along with it too. The problem is that you cannot make a preemptive strike or you give Trump a casus belli to do just that. Whomever acts first loses, and it should be the administration commiting unambitious treason first if you want to stop it. Until then, you need to keep working through the established legal system.

I still don’t think Trump has the personal or political charisma to line up every hole in the swiss cheese of constitutional, legal, moral, and cultural protections to pull it off, but I’ll be prepared to eat crow if he does succeed in overthrowing the government and becoming a dictator.

I am pro-border in the fact that I think borders serve an important purpose and that laws surrounding immigration should exist and be enforced. That said, I think fixing immigration requires following the god damned laws and constitution, you don’t enforce the law by breaking it. Fuck! Immigration courts and the entire immigration bureaucracy needs to be beefed up to handle this, and law enforcement of any kind needs to be working under the judicial system. Warrants are needed, you can’t suspend habeas corpus, cops should never be masked and anonymous, and all law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.

I think Trump is causing the legitimate action of enforcing our laws to look bad, and he is harming law and order for decades or longer. It should not be controversial to enforce laws, and if it is those laws need to be changed.

Despite how scofflaw this administration is, however, I do not think Trump will run for a third term. I don’t think we as a country or even the Republican party as a whole is willing to that blatantly flout the constitution, and I think that at least 60% of both parties want what is best for the country. I don’t think actual Nazis or true jackbooted fascists are more than 10% of the right (I can’t believe I now think it’s that high), but do believe 20-30% are exploited by grifters and opportunists. That might be naive, but it seems like.everyone is abandoning their faith in the fundamental good of others all across the country/world and I think that is sad.

Very true, and everyone should keep that in mind. It’s also true that there is an outsized visibility and impact that instances like ML and hexbear have on the zeitgeist/perception of the platform. It doesn’t help that the creators are ML.

The Internet is not obsessed with speed running just because there exists websites on it obsessed with speed running.

The Internet also sends greeting cards and is used for business/stock market trading, but everyone knows that the Internet is FOR porn.

It depends on the instance and mods I think. I got a temp ban from an instance just citing “bad faith” for asking if there was a source article and getting flamed for “standing in the way of the movement”. I accept that the Libre/FOSS space trends towards more niche user bases, and Lemmy is infinitely better than any other alternatives, but sometimes it feels a bit to close to Emo Phillips “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912”.

Maybe guns are bad, and maybe if you bring a rifle to a high tense situation and hold it in any manner that may seem threatening, you deserve to get shot.>

Maybe guns are tools, and maybe if the majority of protesters were visibly armed then the police would not escalate tense situations to high intensity riot conditions and beat the protesters. Had the state had to hesitate to use violence on peaceful protesters, at least there would be a bunch less abuse of the media and civilians.

The Black Panthers proved this, which is why Reagan started gun control. Modern open carry armed protests have also proven it’s still true. Cops are cowards, Uvalde proved that, even with superior equipment they will find a reason not to start. Getting the left to disarm and put their protection into the hands of the very governmental authority they continually protest against has got to be the biggest con job in history

The question they replied to was where the pro 2A people were. The point of 2A is that the armed populace meets or exceeds the armed tyrants. One person with a gun can’t stop hundreds of cops with battle gear, that’s the point of everyone having a right to be armed.

I would hazard a guess that in this context their answer is probably yes, they expect to need to protest with other pro gun (armed) protesters if they were going to be armed.

Ask the Black Panthers how well only one or two people being armed in a protest worked against the cops, compared to everyone being armed. There is a reason Reagan started gun control, and it wasn’t because his supporters were the ones that were armed.

Yeah, but this is a little like protesting against gun violence by juggling loaded handguns and putting everything on the safeties working perfectly. You don’t protest an unsafe amusement park by going on the unsafe rides standing up.

Point being, most people would probably not want to serve as the example of what not to do. Most rules/regulations are written in blood, but most people aren’t volunteering to be the ink to pen those regulations.

Certainly, it is perfectly valid to just want ideal outcomes for all individuals regardless of the system. You are also not required in any way to discuss your viewpoints with anyone. I will thank you for your time up to this point, and wish you a wonderful day.

I do hope the judge looked him dead in the eyes at the sentencing and said “Bad dog” before rubbing his nose in the evidence bags.

On the positive side, he should be out after 2.13 human years. Sooner with good behavior and completion of an obedience class from a licensed training academy.

That makes the conservative talking point of anchor babies a real thing. Make your way onto US soil to give birth by any means necessary, and suddenly you are granted a pathway to citizenship and a guaranteed legal status from day one?

That kind of massive shortcut of the immigration system would break the system. Birth tourism would skyrocket along with all other forms of illegal immigration. There is a reason no country on earth allows that.

Do you not think that doing so would be a huge incentive driving illegal border crossings or visa overstays to take such a shortcut? Do you think that creating a parallel alternative immigration pathway such as that is a good thing?

I certainly disagree with how the trump administration is operating, and fuck anyone who says non-citizens don’t have a right to a day in court, but how can carving out loopholes and shortcuts be good for the long term health of the system? Unless crippling the system to the point of implosion to cause a reform is the goal, but I find that to be too close to the conservatives crippling other public sector programs to cause private sector reform to profit off it.

This is a bit of a catch 22, the child wasn’t deported her parents were. I don’t even doubt that ICE was lazy and didn’t make sure the mother knew what was happening and every option available to their child. This is a shit show how Trump is handling mass deportation instead of expanding the immigration courts to process the backlogs and get everyone their constitutionally protected day in court. ICE has been done a disservice by Trump and deserves a lot of the shit the department is getting.

The child is a US citizen, 100%, but that doesn’t offer protection from prosecution to their parents. A 2 year old who’s US citizen parent or parents commit a crime will have their parent/parents taken away when put in jail, and then be given into the custody of a relative or taken into foster care. This is not unique to immigration.

Would you rather the child have been unilaterally taken from their mother and placed into US foster care when no family was identified that could take them in the US? Then we are separating children from their families, which is fucked up.

There historically have been limited stays of deportation available for illegal immigrant parents of US citizen children, but this administration is obviously being extremely tough on those. If you want to give automatic deportation immunity to anyone who has a child on US soil until those children are legally adults, you turn “anchor babies” from being basically a myth into an actual reality.

There is no perfect solution for any of this.

I hate shopping at Lowe’s now because they physically removed the regular checkouts and only have a square of self checkouts. They did this so one “cashier” can watch over everything, saving labor on multiple cashiers. They also paired down every other department so it’s just as hard (or possibly harder) to get assistance in a department as at Home Depot. Feels like I’m watch the death spiral in full swing.

Less shoppers means less staff. Less staff means service suffers. Poor service means less shoppers. Rinse and repeat. This is happening at almost every brick and mortar retail business though, not just Lowe’s. It’s like the entire economy has turned into Circuit City trying to keep the lights on.

I was very concerned scrolling the comments that it looked like no one was going to mentioned Margaret Weis. She is an amazing author stand alone, and Dragon Lance was one of the first big Fantasy series I really cut my teeth on.

I totally misread ‘good viable’ as good vibes, and immediately agreed despite having no substantive idea what that would be. Fleet of Magic School buses driven by assorted Ms. Frizzle’s? Cheech and Chong’s Uber service? Limo service where you get to answer suggestive Family Feud surveys with Steve Harvey? I don’t know, but I’m totally down for good vibes alternatives to driving.

Being pro-tariff can (and should) be like being pro-modern medicine. Targeted use saves lives, but the only difference between medicine and poison is the dosage and treatment vector. Tariffs should be used like every other regulation on the economy, but since Reagan the dosages of every regulation have all been way out of whack either way too low or way too high. There is a place for some protectionism, just not like this obviously.

Left when 3rd party apps were killed, stayed because I believe in the concept of the fediverse.

Still have my Reddit accounts, but just hardly use them. There is still a much larger active user base there for a bunch of stuff so I haven’t gone scorched earth yet, but Lemmy is my social media home now.

Lemmying in the bathroom as one does, and you caused me to drop another Seagal by trying to hold my laugh in. I salute you.

Indeed, we should eliminate all landlords and then everyone who wants to not live with family or friends who already own a house should obviously just get a 15 or 30 year mortgage. I’m sure you qualified for one at 18, or maybe 26. And it is really easy and convenient to sell your house/condo/apartment every few years if you want or need to move regularly. There is never a viable condition for renting. But if somehow there were to be a magical condition where one would rent, then clearly the trading of goods and services for money only works if each transaction is specifically priced to only and exactly cover the input costs. Making profit is immoral after all. You know what they say, people and businesses only exist because of the joy derived from watching others consume the products of their labor. Has this comment gotten annoyingly snarky yet?

Now we as a society should start treating housing as a commodity and produce it in vast numbers so that supply continuously meets or exceeds demands. We should also implement a Georgist land use tax to prevent mass corporate ownership of housing so that housing prices fall comparably to what they were in the 50s and 60s. We probably want to slowly phase that change in though, because housing as an investment is the only thing propping up the middle class currently, and if every primary residence home owner was suddenly under water by double or tripple or more of their existing mortgages then bad things happen. Tenent owned cooperative housing complexes might even be cool too.

Thank you for even objectively considering my perspective. The 2nd amendment has a metric shitload of strong feelings surrounding it, which makes it an outlier from all the other rights in the constitution currently. I personally believe every right needs to be defended equally zealously, because there is always a tendency towards erroding them. I wouldn’t even put it past some politicians to actually try my ludicrous voter suppression parts by offering monetary incentives to not vote in districts that aren’t already gerrymandered to hell. Or the same for 4th amendment rights. Looking at you, fascist wing of the GOP.

The constitution is intended to grow and evolve with the country, which is why we have ways to do this. It’s not easy though, by design. Obviously SOMETHING needs to change, be it guns, mental health, policing, wealth equality, or personal security. I, once again personally, think that the root cause of violent crime lies under wealth inequality, lack of feeling secure and productive in society/their community, and physical/mental health rather than just access to firearms. I also think it is easier to get a simple majority of the country to agree to fixing our broken healthcare system, and make substantive steps to curb wealth inequality than it is to get 75% of both houses of Congress and then 75% of State Governments to agree to reduce or eliminate gun rights. But I know I’m an outlier here myself, and there are better minds than mine out there.

I’d love to have a viable candidate to vote for that wants to keep individual gun rights, implement a UBI in place of the rats nest of gutted social services, offer universal healthcare to include mental health, fix the tax code, close loopholes, tax automation, and codify abortion, gay marriage, and LGBTQ rights. But since that wouldn’t rile up the extreme ends of the voter bases, I won’t be holding my breath.