Must be a typo. That should say “to Trump”.

500 bibles for $25,000? That’s $50 per Bible that were 100% made in China for about $3 each. Someone report this to DOGE!

Honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic lol. Yeah, autocracies have long maintained that democracy and freedom of speech isn’t sustainable because you can always use free speech to manipulate the voters to democratically elect an autocrat who ends the democracy. Russia has been openly trying to demonstrate this since the cold war.

Source: ex-KGB agent flat-out says it.

Lol thank you OP for rewording the title. The original title is ambiguous and at first I thought the cabinet picked an upset muslim. Which incredibly, would be better news than what it actually says 😂.

This guy better watch out, Trump might pick him for the USDA-APHIS head.

Sucks for the US, but also for all the other countries dependent on the US for passive protection. Russia and China are going to do whatever they want now. North Korea might even get a chance to see some action. Historically, the US has made an effort to keep an eye on our enemies from the borders of our allies. Trump legitimately believes the only enemies that exist are within our borders.

It’s still small, so the whole platform still feels like one of the larger reddit subs. The same people show up everywhere, and if you want to create a niche community, you’ll go months without seeing any posts.

FWIW, this breaks from the Two Santas Strategy. This Santa is suppose to be funding things conservatives want, while at the same time reducing taxes (on the rich), thereby driving the deficit up without making their voters mad. If you actually cut funding for a bunch of stuff people rely on, you will earn the ire of the voters, that’s why no one ever does it.

Yeah, there will be a core of people who will defend Trump and Musk to their self-inflicted death, but those people are in the minority. Most Americans (and most people in the world) voted against the incumbent this year because they were unfortunately there during a time of inevitable inflation. And they’ll do it again if their lives continue to get materially worse over the next few years.

I can’t help but wonder how we would be sitting right now if Trump had won in 2020. But we’re due for a generational crisis, and I don’t think that wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting.

NASA is and has always been a way for the US to maintain a literal military high ground. If it gets defunded, I don’t think you’ll have to resort to violence, our rivals will do it for us.

If you ask Trump, this IS his third term, so no, he’s not joking.

Honestly, once Trump gets sworn in, I assume the people around him who want to implement Project 2025 won’t have any more use for him. That’s why Vance is there, just look at his track record, he knows how to play ball.

We’re still not on the same page. The intention of the analogy is that he’s doing the same thing in public as he is out his window. Waving a flag and yelling are both first amendment protected actions, so I wasn’t drawing a distinction between the two, but apparently it’s causing confusion, so for the sake of the discussion, let’s say he’s flying a swastika out his window vs flying it in front of a theater.

So now my question is: is there a difference between you punching him in the face in public vs breaking into his house and punching him there?

Because the answer is no, in either case (for better or worse) you are violating his autonomy.

But my original point that got us here is: you shouldn’t want to punch him OR break into his house, because if whatever he’s doing is actually encouraging violence, you should want to have a functioning police and justice system to handle the situation in a fair and consistent manner. To do anything less is to admit you do not live in a functioning society. Which, sure, maybe that’s the case, but as long as we agree on what “ideal” is, my hope us we can agree to work towards that. Punching a nazi is treating a symptom, it’s not a solution to any problem.

That’s the same thing. It’s inconsistent to argue that it’s ok to violate a person’s autonomy for what they yell in public, but not for what they yell out their window.

I mean, realisticly I’m not going to stop you from punching a self-described nazi, I’m just going to ask that you be consistent about when you believe it’s ethical to do so.

Edit: the US actually has a legal grey area around this topic deemed “fighting words”, which is speech that the jury agrees is immediately threatening enough that the person had no choice but to physically respond. This obviously can get pretty unethical in its interpretation. If a nazi yells “fuck the jews” outside an Anne Frank play, I think no jury would have a problem if they get hit. Does that also mean if someone else yells “fuck the police” outside a police station, the cops are justified in beating them?

Yeah, notice I’m not advocating for tolerance of hate speech. I’m advocating for a working society where we don’t need to resort to vigilantism. We should be demanding that our police shut down threats of violence and hate speech without tolerance.

Btw, memes are fun, but I don’t recommend distilling philosophical concepts about ethics to memes. Much less lazily sharing them in place of thoughtful discussion. You run the risk of sharing them in a moment that makes it appear you weren’t paying any attention to the discussion at hand.

Well until now in this discussion we haven’t established that cops were the ones committing waving the flags. But unfortunately you’re right, “some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses.”

Speaking ideally, yes obviously we all expect cops to arrest their friends when their friends are committing crimes. Unfortunately that doesn’t happen nearly as much as it should.

When our police and justice system fails, and we officially live in a failed state, then all bets are off.

But until then, if your neighbor yells “I think you all should die” out his window, it doesn’t suddenly justify the neighbors taking matters into their own hands, busting down his door, and “overwhelming” him. That’s wild west law.

No sir, scroll up and re-read the suggestion about “meeting violence with overwhelming violence”.

“ReDUMBlicans”? Don’t you mean " RePOOPlicans"?

Then let’s make one.

What you’re advocating is vigilantism. In a working society, if they are committing acts of violence (aka crime), you shouldn’t need to advocate “overwhelming violence” in response, you should be advocating a working police force who can arrest them, and hold them safely until they can be judged by a jury of their peers.

I feel like vigilantism is the left making an equivalent argument to the right’s “more guns = more safety”. Unless you live in a lawless warzone, you shouldn’t want either.