TechyDad

Hey, we can’t let kids know what words mean!

Bans the dictionary

It’s because half of the Republicans don’t want democracy anymore. Democracy means that the other side might have power if the right’s views aren’t popular enough. That’s unacceptable to Republicans. They want a system where they are always in charge and nothing so minor as “our policies are highly unpopular” can stop them. They want a dictatorship with them in charge.

At best, maybe they’re willing to have a “democracy” where you have the choice of which Republican you want leading you. (It would sort of be as if the Republican primaries were really determining who would be President - not who would be the Republicans’ candidate for President.)

Only if the House didn’t impeach him and the Senate didn’t convict.

So Biden would also have to kill as many Congressional Republicans as possible to prevent any impeachment vote from succeeding. This “legal theory” is essentially saying “one murder might be criminally liable, but mass murder of political opponents is just fine!”

And it gets better. In the Georgia case, they are arguing that Trump can’t be tried because he was impeached for that crime and a criminal trial would be double jeopardy.

Ignore for a second that his impeachment wasn’t over the Georgia crimes. Trump’s lawyers are arguing that you need to impeach/convict before you can criminally charge, but if you impeach then you can’t criminally charge.

Their legal theories are the equivalent of “I object! It’s devastating to my case!”

Or just go one step further and have all Congressional members of the opposing party killed.

Biden would never do this and I don’t want him to, but let’s suppose that Trump’s “legal theory” is correct and Biden wakes up tomorrow thinking that he’s sick of dealing with the Republicans’ malarkey. He orders some military groups known to be loyal to him to round up every Republican member of Congress along with certain Supreme Court justices. They are all executed. Then Trump is brought in and executed as well.

Now what would happen? Would Biden be charged with mass murder? No, he’s immune to prosecution. You need to impeach and convict him first. But nobody remains who would impeach him. So he’s totally immune as he appoints left leaning Supreme Court justices and expands his “early Republican retirement program” to right leaning Federal judges.

Again, I wouldn’t want him doing this, but according to Trump this would be totally legal.

“Sleepy Joe Biden is lowering gas prices in a partisan attempt to win reelection. The second the election is over, he’ll raise gas prices to $5 a gallon and require all new cars to be electric! I know this is true because I saw a post on Facebook about it!!!”

Punching down is never funny. Picking on people who have been marginalized or attacked for being who they are winds up being cruel, not humorous. Maybe a skilled comedian could punch down in such a way that it’s funny, but it would be an extremely rare event.

If you want to punch and be funny, you have two options. The first is to punch up. Hit the people in power. Hit the people who have luxury. For example, a joke making fun of poor people isn’t likely to be funny. A joke making fun of wealthy people, though? That has a much better chance of being funny.

The other punch style is the self punch. This is where you make fun of yourself or your own “group.” For example, I’m Jewish. If a non-Jew makes a “Jews run the world” joke, it’ll likely come across as highly anti-semitic. If I were to make that joke, I’d stand a decent chance of getting a laugh. (Well, assuming that I had basic comedy skills.)

When the right complains that the left has ruined comedy, what they really mean is that they can’t make fun of people who are suffering without being called cruel.

My best guess is that it would be less open warfare and more terrorist attacks. For example, suppose NYC has its annual Pride Parade. Some right-wingers would travel in from a red county and “join” the parade. At a certain point, they’d set off some incendiary device to disrupt the proceedings before retreating back to MAGA-land.

These attacks wouldn’t need a lot of ammunition or all that much coordination (when compared with a military). MAGA sheriffs could abuse their authority to protect MAGA terrorists from being arrested. (Leaking information to them. “Arresting” them first and refusing to turn them over to state/federal officials. Etc.)

With enough of these attacks, you could have a “war” without any military on either side.

The big problem with a Second Civil War is that it won’t be North vs South. It wouldn’t even be Red States vs Blue States. It would be Red Counties vs Blue Counties.

I live in NY - a deep blue state. I even live in a blue area of the state. If I drive less than 30 minutes from my house, though, I’d end up in an area so red that I might as well be in the deep south.

If there was an active Civil War, people in these red counties would travel to the blue counties to launch attacks (and vice versa). There would be no real “front line.” The entire country would be a front line.

Republicans: “States need to decide for themselves!”

Blue states: “Okay. We decide to protect LGBTQ people. And abortion rights. And prosecute people who tried to overturn our elections.”

Republicans: “NOT LIKE THAT!!!”

The whole situation in the Middle East is a Gordian Knot of epic proportions. There’s a ton of generational trauma among both people. Both sides have valid claims against the other. Normally, I hate “both sides-ism,” but the overall Middle East situation definitely calls for it.

It’s also, sadly, why peace is so hard to achieve. If it was as simple as “give this side A and that side B,” it would have been over long ago. There are elements on both sides that refuse to stop until the other side is completely killed off. Meanwhile, most people would just want peace but are caught in the middle and are scared. And those of us in America know what kind of politicians thrive on fear and hatred. If you need a hint, watch Newsmax or OAN for as long as your brain will tolerate it.

Weren’t some hostages also drugged so they’d be “happy and smiling” for the cameras when released? I heard that, but don’t know the authenticity.

Edit: I found many news sources that said they were. I know some folks don’t trust anything Israel says so take reports like this with a grain of salt. Still, it’s been confirmed that many of the hostages were drugged while in captivity. Especially the kids - to keep them quiet. (Anyone with little kids knows they can be loud while scared and this must have been extremely scary. As a father, the reaction of “drug the little kids” makes me angry.)

Don’t forget that the Hamas leaders are living in luxury as billionaires in Qatar. If the Israeli response kills a few thousand Palestinians, then Hamas’ leaders will shrug their shoulders and say “sounds like good PR” while lounging in a hot tub.

This is what some people who cheer on Hamas don’t seem to understand. Hamas was elected into power, yes, but they claimed to be moderates. Even so, they won a plurality, not a majority. Then, they cancelled all future elections and revealed themselves to be extremists.

The aid that goes to the Gaza Strip is either seized by the leaders of Hamas (who are billionaires living in luxury in Qatar) or are used to buy weapons to attack Israel. Very little actually goes to the Palestinian people.

Even if we set anything Israel-related aside, Hamas needs to go for the well being of the Palestinian people. At the very least, there should be free, fair, and regular elections so the government does what the people want instead of just what some billionaires in Qatar (who don’t need to deal with the consequences) want.

Sadly, this is the reason too many people overlook. It’s not the only reason. A full listing of the reasons and their history would fill a book, but just focusing on the money aspect:

Hamas gets funding and weapons from Iran. Iran wants instability there and encourages the “wipe out Israel, kill all the Jews mentality.”

On the other side, evangelical Christians in the US support people like the settlers in the West Bank. In the case of the evangelicals, it’s because they need Israel to be controlled by Jews for Jesus to return, but they also need Israel to suffer a big attack. Peace in the Middle East would, in their twisted view, hurt Jesus’ chances of returning. As an aside, they think that Jesus will toss all the Jews into hell once he comes back so them “supporting Israel” is definitely not “pro-Jews.” It’s merely delayed anti-semitism.

Remove these two elements and the fire would still rage there, but these groups see the fire and decide to toss some gasoline on top of it.

There are pockets of NY, outside of NYC, that are blue. The big areas that are red are mostly rural counties. But land doesn’t vote, people do, so it doesn’t matter if 1,000 people in a huge area vote red when 100,000 people in a small city vote blue.

You’re right that NYC helps keep us blue, but they aren’t the only ones. In 2020, NY voted for Biden over Trump 60.8% to 37.7%. If we removed NYC’s counties, NY would have still voted for Biden, but at a much closer 52.4% to 45.9%.

And then sold merchandise with his mugshot with the caption “Never Surrender.” The mugshot from when he literally surrendered. And MAGA folks bought the stuff proving that they’ll buy anything to prove their “MAGA-ness.”

Republicans: “No! In fact, we’ll make sure that it’s legal for minors to carry weapons without any adult supervision!!!”

Did you read what I wrote? It’s not that they decided they weren’t going to do anything. It’s that the rules of the government limit what they can do with a small majority. They can’t just unilaterally decide that they are passing a new constitutional amendment with a few vote majority in the House/Senate. They could try for a bill, but there they are limited by various other rules not to mention the conservative Supreme Court. If the Democrats had a big enough majority, they could get more bills passed.

And that being said, what’s the alternative? Allow the Republicans to get into power and hope that they don’t take away women’s rights too much? Many Republicans have already declared that they want a national abortion ban. Others have said that they want to criminalize miscarriage and ban contraception.

Voting third party (thanks to our First Past The Post system) won’t work. Sitting out the elections and not voting won’t work. The best thing to do is get as many Democrats in office as possible from local positions to the highest offices. Then, put pressure on the higher up Democrats to get a women’s rights bill passed.

At this point, and with our current political system, not supporting the Democratic candidate is essentially supporting the Republican one.

The Democrats could have passed a bill, but “enshrining it in the Constitution” would mean passing a Constitutional amendment. First, they would need a 2/3rds vote of Congress. That means that the Democrats couldn’t have a slim majority - they’d need a large majority. Or they’d need to find Republicans willing to vote for a Constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. Basically an impossibility.

Even if the Democrats managed to get the Constitutional Right To Abortion passed, they would need to have 75% of the state legislatures pass it. Democrats don’t control that name state legislatures.

So perhaps the Democrats could have passed a national law, right? Except that the Republicans would inevitably filibuster this in the Senate. The Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules, but not all of them supported changing these rules. (Mainly because it would prevent them from stopping the Republicans if the Republicans regained the Senate.) Any law that was passed would inevitably have been challenged up to the conservative Supreme Court.

You could definitely criticize the Democrats for not pushing harder to pass a law guaranteeing abortion, but a Constitutional Amendment was out of reach.