Cuz a Nazi gave it to him.

I’m a world where laws mattered those words would haunt him all the way to the gallows.

That is a very important apostrophe.

Was he right tho?

You mean the god that prioritizes fealty and “love” for him alone over virtue, righteousness and good works? One who will give entrance to heaven to a life long sadistic, violent, and self-centered man who repents in his death bed, but will eternally condemn a man who has fed and clothed millions, who saved lives, who reformed bigots and criminals but questioned the existence of God or worshipped another. Compared to Satan, an angel that wished to overthrow this selfish god. Who values knowledge and choice in humanity. Who rewards ambition and creative joy. Who is stuck in hell with the rest of those condemned by the Almighty. I mean, is really no wonder many Christians are how they are.

If you haven’t, read Horns by Joe Hill (skip the movie, it’s not the same). It plays a lot with this dynamic. The protagonist isn’t a hero, isn’t “the good guy”, but has a righteous cause and when God fails him, the Devil steps up.

Behold, the field in which I grow my fucks, that I may give of them. Lay thine eyes upon it and ye shalt see that it is barren.

That’s because, per Christian doctrine, Jesus created a new covenant with his sacrifice that fulfills and supersedes the old laws, and put a more spiritual mercy/love-driven interpretation on the previous rigid adherence aspects of Jewish laws and traditions before.

AI companies going to start generating fake claims and denying them for rewards, I guarantee it.

❄️❄️❄️ brr, it’s cold in here.

Just to be clear, limiting free speech is already allowed to a degree. The Supreme Court has long ruled that it’s legal to constrain the right to expression based on time, manner, and place restrictions, so long as those restrictions are content neutral, serve a legitimate public need, and are minimally restrictive to serve that need.

This law absolutely does not qualify. I’m sure they will argue it served some bullshit need to prevent disruption to campus activities, issues with policing, public safety, etc. But there is no chance that restricting all 1st amendment expression on a college campus for nearly 12 hours a day serves any legitimate public need in the least restrictive manner to serve that need. It will certainly be struck down as unconstitutional by a sensible judge somewhere along the way.

But the problem is that this law is not the goal. They want a judge to strike it down. That is the actual goal. That is why they keep passing such blatantly unconstitutional laws in red states pertaining to religion, free speech, lgbt rights, etc. They are doing it for 2 reasons A) They are trying to make the legitimate acts of the judicial branch out to be some sort of overreach on the will of Trump and conservative states to help remove stopgaps that they can’t control from their way entirely. That’s what the SCOTUS’ ruling against national injunctions for lower federal courts was meant to hinder. And B) when it does get ruled against, they just have to keep appealing until they get to the Supreme Court and let the right wing nuts redefine our 1st amendment rights to suit their desires for the entire country, not just Texas. Even if this particular law doesn’t survive their decision, again, that was never the point. You can bet your ass that even in striking the specific law down, they will set new precedent with the case that will fundamentally weaken free speech rights for all of us. It will make it easier to implement draconian laws like this on a national scale.

There are things on the internet that are free and fine to use. VPNs are not one of them. They have ongoing hosting and bandwidth costs. They are not eating those costs without recouping them somehow.

I live in Indiana in a hard red district. If I thought there was even a chance, I’d seriously be considering it. I couldn’t even manage to get to city council here though. Half of the local elections dont even have a Dem or independent running because there is no chance for it. Your name has an R next to it or you fuck off with your maybe 15 percent.

pinch bridge of nose… deep breath

How the fuck is the left losing to literal insane people and morons. How the fuck are there DOZENS, if not hundreds, of people sitting in the highest positions of our government who believe 1000% in actually certifiable conspiracy theories about giants, space lasers, weather machines, chem trails, microchips vaccines, 5G mind control/Covid generation, and virgins blood drinking rituals… and yet we are still debating the democrats based on high brow merit.

I fucking hate these people, but I really hate all of the mother fucking morons and degenerates that helped put them into these positions more. And that includes all of you dumbasses that just didnt vote for Kamala whether willfully or apathetically. I have no love for the woman either, but come the fuck on. Look what the fuck you have done. I’m so tired of pretending that any of this shit is abnormal and temporary and will be reigned in. There is no end in sight, and seems only likely to get way worse. Fuck all of you shortsighted, idiotic and hateful assholes. You did this and now we all suffer because of it.

Stuff removed, stuff added, everything pulled tight. It’s like taxidermy but for still alive vanity-obsessed women, and it often looks like it too.

Yes, I did mean in the ideal sense, there is a functional purpose for raising the prices of foreign goods IF there is a domestic alternative you wish to boost or expand. But the mechanism for the benefit, IF(big if) there is one, is the increase in price. Tariff (ideally) equals targetted price increases. Saying tariffs might raise prices is like saying stabbing you might wound you. I might have a good reason for wounding you, I might not, but the wounding will happen as a direct consequences of my stabbing you, regardless.

Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.

I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.

You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.

You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.

The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.

The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.

They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work

That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.

Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.

I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.

What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?

People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.

I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.

What do you mean “likely pushing up cost of electronics”. That is the literal point of a tariff, to push the prices up and make competing goods more appealing to consumers. The only way it doesnt raise prices is if importers just eat the cost, which they will almost certainly not do and, frankly, shouldn’t do.

Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.

Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.

Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?

No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue won the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for the love of god!