limonfiesta

I can’t tell if New Labour is as bad as the Democrats yet, but boy do they also seem determined to serve the interests of the Epstein class, at the direct and immediate expense of everyone else.

Super size me baby

Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

Just some food for thought.

Yes, all adults.

Unless you’re proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.

You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.

Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.

You haven’t even left the confines of Lemmy, and you’re already running headfirst into unintended consequences.

Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.

The state has different obligations to protect children than they do adults. Which is why we have things like drinking age laws and legal concepts such as in loco parentis.

You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices, and instead, inserting the government into those relationships, under the penalty of incarceration and government sanctioned violence, for the crime of having an unauthorized interpersonal consensual relationship between two adults.

And that’s only taking your proposal at face value and ignoring the plethora of unintended consequences, such as perverse political incentives and privatization.

they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship

The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.

No amount of rhetorical flourish can get away from what they are essentially presenting, which is requiring government permission for interpersonal relationships.

How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?

How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?

And then we get to some fun questions, like what happens if the government privatizes the relationship approval system that OP is proposing?

Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.

You are suggesting government issued licenses/permission for private people to engage in private relationships.

You could have just said yes.

Are you proposing that people should have to obtain a government-issued licenses for private interpersonal relationships?

He’s a world renowned asshole and always has been.

But don’t take my word for it, look it up. Him being a giant asshole is no secret.

Michael Jordan is a piece of shit, I don’t give a flying fuck about NASCAR, and I’m still rooting for him here.

I really hope MJ’s money allows him to stick with his lawsuit enough to force change to their business model.

Finally, a scandal I can just enjoy.

Nah, this all looks great.

Seriously, agentic browsing…Can anyone tell me what the purpose of that is, aside from just seeing how fucked up it gets?

You pack and you crack.

You either try and pack as many opposition voters into as few districts is possible, or you crack opposition districts and spread their voters to districts you think have enough favorable demographics for you to still win.

But they did all this math based on voter data from the last presidential election, and those demographics have now swung wildly in the other direction, at least according to more recent elections.

So they created a whole bunch of GOP districts that only had a few points of advantage, but that advantage was based off Trump 2024 results.

Is this copium? Maybe, maybe not.

They really did make these decisions based off that voter data, and subsequent election results raise the possibility that they’re really fucking up here, but only time will tell if those trends hold.

deleted by creator

Is this the same Texas map that was drawn up using voting data based on Trump’s 2024 victory?

Because if so, does it not then have the potential to water down enough districts to make them swing districts, based off of more recent demographic voting trends?

Apparently it’s unpopular to call it the DoW, and while I realize that Congress has yet to officially change it, I think it’s a much more appropriate, and accurate, name.

When was the last time the DoD was engaged in a defensive war?

So unless they plan on further changing it to the Department of War Crimes, I think DoW is as good as we can hope for a name that aligns with their actual purpose.

AI slop, be gone.

Can a mod please remove this post?

It was used exclusively by his viewers who had formed parasocial relationships.

Literally, no one else.