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.)