Disavowing Hamas is entirely pointless. Racists will accuse you of being Hamas no matter what.
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
162 points (98.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7205 readers
496 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
When the entire population of Palestine is described as "Hamas", all "Condemning Hamas" amounts to is blaming civilians for their own massacre. It's just racist people demanding you be as racist as they are before they let you speak.
Besides that, supporting Hamas is the only moral position.
Ha! His state is run on slave prison labor. Shut the fuck up, John.
We need to take away their congressional representation until they finally start following the post-civil war amendments.
150 years is enough.
Sadly the post-civil war amendments include a provision that allows prisoners to be used for unpaid labor.
From the text of the 13th amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Only argument is if the party has been "duly" convicted, which is a recurring issue we see with the US justice system.
Again, great.
First, they have to start following the amendment as written, and we can pass an amendment to outlaw involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes.
But that's 1 clause from a ton of amendments they refuse to follow, in fact Mississippi STILL REFUSES to retify the 24th amendment, and has voted to reject it outright.
Until they sort their shit out, no representative for the fuckers.
Take a closer look at the 13th amendment. It’s not as awesome as you were taught in school.
It essentially legalizes slave labor in prisons. For everyone.
Technically it doesn't legalize it, it just avoids the criminalization of it. This is significant because it makes it much easier to reform (which is how around half of states have reformed it at least a little), and this combined with the fact that most states lack significant reforms tells you a lot.
I think the text is pretty direct about permitting it. If it is listed as an exception to that which shall not exist, then it is explicitly allowed to exist.
It's not a de-facto exception by omission, it is named as permissable within the text of the amendment.
The previous commenter is technically correct— since slavery was already legal, the 13th simply carves out prison labor as an exception to the ban on slavery. And, as they pointed out, the legal distinction is important when it comes to individual states banning the practice of prison slave labor.
Sure, but also worth noting that some prisons are federally run, a state wouldn't have the jurisdiction to ban something that the fed controls. That is why reform needs to come from the top, not just at the state level.
Great!
Let's update that as well!
And again, the south can get representation back as soon as they start following the constitution.
The constitution is a living document. Any parts found to be “problematic” were designed to be updated. Garbage like the 2nd amendment - especially- was meant to be updated. And the 13th…
The problem with the 2nd amendment isn't that it wasn't updated, it's that it was.
The 14th amendment incorporated the other amendments such that they did not only restrict the power of the federal government upon the states and citizens, as the founders intended, but also restricted the states (so you couldn't have southern states being evil to their citizens).
But the 2nd amendment was incorporated radically under Heller, when it should have been incorporated in a more moderate way, such that regulations were possible, within reason, not the wild-west that Heller imposed.
The 13th should have been reinterpreted by the courts such that many of our current forms of incarcerated service were considered beyond the line and became de facto slavery, particularly when imposed by southern states as they were.
Honestly the fundamental problem with post-bellum American jurisprudence was giving southern states any benefit of the doubt of being remotely human when they repeatedly violated every such standard.
The most frustrating part is that the witness literally answered his questions. She wasn't even replying in non-answers like others who try to avoid directly answering a question, and he still kept on accusing her of the opposite. Ultimate grandstanding.
Video in the article
I’m trying to think of the most painful and apropos thing that could happen to Kennedy, but I can’t come up with anything suitable enough.
EDIT: I’ve got it! He gets beaten to death by Nazi proud boiz with Baseball bats.
The witness, later that day.
That's a pillow, not a bag.
Baby steps
What a repulsive human being.
No. YOU hide your head in a bag, Senator. You're an embarrassment to your state.