The Mamdani Act would amend existing immigration law to prohibit the admission and naturalization of any noncitizen who is or was a member of, affiliated with, or advocates for a Chinese communist, communist, socialist, Islamic fundamentalist or other totalitarian party—or any organization that advocates those ideologies. Under its deportation provisions, a noncitizen already in the United States could be removed if they engage in advocacy for socialism, communism, Marxism or Islamic fundamentalism, distribute or publish material promoting those ideologies or hold membership in affiliated organizations at any point after admission.
You know he is a much needed anti-toxin, especially when they name a bill after him. Let the healing begin.
We are so back, baby! [to one of the worst times in modern human history]
So republicans are Publicly trying to end social security. Got it. start running those ads.
The Democrats won’t because their donors won’t let them
this is what you get for not hanging your fascists
There should be a negative consequence for proposing obviously unconstitutional bullshit with no chance of passing just for publicity
We MUST deport ANYONE who DOESNT like having Sex With Children!
-Republicans!
You say that like someone isnt going to immediately jump in and point out that Aisha was 9 years old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha?wprov=sfla1
We live in a fucked up world, and it turns out we always have. Sad stuff, man.
What the fuck did I just read? She was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 when it was “consummated”.
He would often just sit and watch her and her friends play with dolls, and on occasion, he would even join them.
🤮
Yup. Maybe someone from that religion can explain to you how they make it OK in their head, if they want to. Of course, nobody has to defend their religious beliefs to anybody else, so i hope it doesnt come across like im pressuring anyone.
I can shed some light as an ex-Muslim. There are a bunch of common, disgusting excuses: “times were different”, “girls used to mature faster”, “it was common back then”.
There’re more interesting possibilities though. It’s true that it was a political marriage that was basically forced onto Muhammed. But an extension of that reasoning is that the consummation never happened either.
It’s been a while since I looked at this stuff but I remember that there’s actually also a surprisingly compelling case against her ages being 6 and 9. But it would still be 13 to 16 IIRC. The historical side of this is pretty interesting (like how hadith was compiled vs the quran), but not really worth discussing here.
Anyway, yeah, like every other religion, just a cult that grew too large. Anything but admitting that they’re wrong.
Thanks for the perspective. It’s interesting that the disgusting excuses still exist alongside the “consummation never happened” and “they got the ages all wrong here” excuses. Zealots be zealoting in every religion.
It’s a bit weird in Islam. So some important context first.
Basically all of Islam’s rules/laws and stories come from two sources: the Quran and Hadith. You probably already know of the Quran but it’s what they believe to be God’s words verbatim. Hadith, on the other hand, is basically everything the prophet said or did, as recorded by different people.
The Quran was compiled almost immediately after Muhammed died. But Hadith was compiled 2 centuries after that.
To get to the more positive conclusions, you would need to deny a very specific Hadith narrated by Aisha herself. But we only know that she said that because her nephew said so to his students, who then said so to others… So it’s a matter of the verifiability of that chain of trust. But if you believe that Hadith to be false, it would cast doubt on the rest of Hadith and people are not a fan of that idea.
So instead, most Muslims just accept that he’s a pedophile but get offended when you call him a pedophile.
I’m sure there are a lot of people in that religion that don’t find that acceptable.
I meant “make it OK” like how I was raised Roman Catholic and the church abused/raped children and lied about it, but many of my fellow roman catholics still believe the church to be “of God.” They dont condone the abuse, but despite knowing how systemic it all was, they still remain devout. They somehow make it OK to continue being Catholic.
The youngest royal brides in history
https://www.theroyalforums.com/threads/the-youngest-royal-brides-in-history.17081/
That means this bill has to define socialism. Good luck with that one bucko, if you have 10 socialists in a room, you get 11 definitions /s
I’m genuinely curious how it gets defined. I’m wondering if it can be sidestepped with a simple word change
It’s reds under the bed. If anyone in a position of power says you’re a socialist then you’re a socialist and you get made stateless and dumped in Nigeria.
Yea this is absolutely red scare bs, but I’m morbidly curious about this thought crime
That means this bill has to define socialism.
It’s not meant to have a definition. That’s why the proposed law denies judicial review. The “definition” is supposed to be whatever the ICE
Officer(s)Gestapo wants it to be.That’s not an issue with the law, it’s a feature. They don’t need to prove you fit a definition. They only need to prove that they can call you a socialist. Anyone to the left of whatever positions they don’t like are in danger of this law. It doesn’t matter if you’d call yourself a socialist, only if they would.
deleted by creator
The law states tge process has no legal review, so its whatever definition ICE wants to use, since no judge can say its wrong.
A law designed to break multiple laws.
I’m genuinely curious how it gets defined
?? whom ever is head of Immigration says it is… it will be deliberately nebulous so you can say "banned because they are a socialist " if you have dark skin and don’t wear Kirkland pants to the interview.
there’s laws about terrorists without that being defined. they’ll manage without one.
Probably would include someone who says “I am a socialist.” Hence calling it the Mamdani act.
I mean, every Anti-Woke person got a full on definition from Republicans which is described as an awareness of social inequalities within racial, gender, and workplace environments.
So basically, all the right wing nut jobs wanted to “get rid of ‘woke’” is perfectly okay with the idea of having rights for me, not for you, that women, POC and LGBTQ+ people should have less rights than cis white men.
They can define socialism all they want and the frothing low-IQ dipshits will still vote for it, even if the definition of socialism straight up tells them their lives would be better under it.
It’s never about the definition. It’s never about any of it. It’s entirely about their own slice of pie. Anyone else getting any semblance of good will means less to them.
It’s why they’re against gay marriage. If two men get married, it somehow makes his marriage to a woman invalidated.
deleted by creator
They would kill Jesus himself
It isn’t a real Jesus unless it comes from the crucifixion region in Jerusalem, otherwise its just sparkling hispanic
Donald Trump IS Jesus, obviously
Pretty sure Donald Trump is the antichrist
Just a doctor.
What did they think the J stood for, Jessica?
So he’d have deported Einstein, then?
Without a doubt these pieces of shit would’ve deported him, ur watching the same bad movie with an orange rapist as the lead actor, arent u, lol?
First amendment lawyers are gonna have a FIELD DAY with this one 😭
Watch the Trump admin revoke their licences.
Barr licenses are provided by states individually.
Silly you, thinking laws and rules mean anything
I mean where have you been? If laws and rules no longer had any meaning then why is the administration being forced to give back the tariff money and repeal them? Why was the admistration forced to re-hire thousands of federal employees it illegally terminated? Why was the national gaurd forced to leave several cities?
These were all decided by the courts and the administration complied. I’m not saying compliance is perfect, and I’m not saying the administration isn’t trying to do very undemocratic things. But clearly there is still some rule of law.
The prevailing sentiment from the Lemmy community is that Trump is completely unstoppable and we should all just give up and accept his tyranny.
The prevailing sentiment is that they’re extremely dangerous, do a lot of evil, and need to be stopped. The prevailing answer to that is “Oh, you’re overreacting, they’re perfectly stoppable, so you don’t need to worry about anything. Don’t forget to never vote under any circumstances because voting is useless and doesn’t work”
People love running propaganda for MAGA like that.
Or perhaps sentiment is that the institutions empowered to stop him are unwilling to do so because they are captured by capital… and that we all need to put people into power who won’t betray the people and who are willing to do something with that power to help everyone else… and perhaps work to restructure things so that the system works in favor of the working class instead of incrementally submitting to the will of capital until we are all wage slaves begging for table scraps from gold leafed shit stains like Musk and Bezos.
Clearly, they don’t. As arrow74 has explained.
“Some rule of law” is a bit of an oxymoron, no?
The Trump regime literally loses in court daily.
And what difference does it make? They don’t uphold your silly court orders with every opportunity they get, and having full hold on power, they have a lot of those opportunities.
Got any examples or are you just a useful idiot spreading hopelessness? It sounds like you don’t actually follow court cases in the USA, or don’t understand how our legal system works.
Just assume the people who drink the Kool aid are propagandists or bots serving the same purpose.
If not, they’re just useful idiots.
Very land of the free
It’s never been that in its totality. It has always had an unspoken “for some” implied after “land of the free”.
Mamdani is a centrist, he isn’t left. But since the Republicans are alt right and the Democrats are right, they consider everything else to be far left and label anything that isn’t right as communist. They don’t know what communism is. Even Trump labeled people communist nazis. Communists and nazis are the opposite of eachother. Americans are so, so fucking dumb.
He might not be as left as you’d like, but calling Mamdani a centrist is just ignorant
Par the course for anarchists.
Not to people outside the US it isn’t
Yes to people outside the US.
The Democratic party is centrist by pretty much every measure (especially outside the US), but Mamdani is a leftist.
If he would be a politician in my country he would he centrist, maybe a fraction on the left of the centre. But if the rest in the US is either right or alt right, I get that he looks really left. But his political views are similar to our centrist politicians.
That might be true in Europe, but it’s complete bullshit in the USA.
If the only 2 parties are both right, anything else looks left. It’s a matter of contrast. But Mamdani is centre on the political spectrum, maybe slightly on the left but definitely not far.
Not even communist seems to know what communism is anymore considering China has went full on fascist as well as being an oligarchy for the last 70 years.
Mate, the USSR wasn’t even communist. Because communism doesn’t have a government run by elites and a dictator as a sole leader. It’s a wrong interpretation of what communism actually is, because bad people see a way to abuse the system to gain wealth and power. This is what happens everywhere. Rotten apples do not play fair and because of that always have an advantage in gaining positions of power. This happens everywhere. The USSR, China, modern day Russia, the US, etc.
Yes, that makes complete sense. Almost like democracy/socialism/communism is really just rhetoric for power and control.
No it’s not. They are concepts of how to have a society. They are different structures. The biggest issue with them is that in most cases they didn’t take into account the systems can be abused. Its hard to avoid abuse and corruption, as the systems are very complex. The more complex, the more opportunities there are for people to exploit.
I can’t remember who it was. But some wise person said that people applying for jobs that hold power, should automatically be rejected. The only people who should have those jobs should be dragged against their will and put there, and should only be allowed to leave when they did good.
Next to that I believe people with those jobs should have proper background checks, psychological tests and IQ tests. And they should always be held accountable for their actions.
I think this is necessary to have systems like communism and democracy work somewhat decently, with a reduced chance of abuse of power. But I prefer anarchism, where there are no country borders, no huge huge governments who dictate their rules but small communities who manage themselves the way that works best for them.
I think we are splitting hairs here. I get you believe these concepts exist outside of reality as an ideal. I just don’t see it that way anymore. They are just excuses powerful and well connected people use to create the consent of the governed. The propaganda if you will.
We are “democratic socialist state” or we are “unitary communist state” is inconsequential to the reality of policy and how the government(s) actually work.
I agree with the reasoning that those who want power should not have it and those who don’t want power generally make better leaders as far as creating policies that benefit society as a whole. As opposed to just special interest groups.
We would have to create an new form of government that was designed to resist corruption instead of embracing it to change this all to common dynamic.
Having a pool of qualified and randomly selected individuals for representation is one idea I have heard. I think we need a truly radical approach to shake off the olgiarchies that the world is currently controlled by.
Just like democracy, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc these ideals are just that. Unless we can translate these ideals to actual passed and enforced policies they are nothing but lip service.
Call me jaded, but with the ever increasing worldwide wealth gaps no system has any answers and the few examples of anarchism, such as Rojava, have already been absorbed by the state.
It seems anarchism could only exist in a vacuum which points out the need to develop a real set of enforceable and attainable policies to make it work alongside a state actor.
Mamdani is the closest thing to a left wing politician America has been exposed to (to my European eyes he seems center-left), and the whole of the US is going completely ballistic about it.
The rich/racists are going ballistic, but many see him as a ray of hope.
A fortnightly somewhat comedic podcast also recommended that progressive politicians should follow his campaign style, focusing mostly on economic policies to help everyday policies. I wouldn’t call them experts or anything, but they claimed a few other politicians doing the same thing had promising results (they didn’t state specific examples).
But yeah, lots of Americans do like at least some of what he’s doing, but those usually aren’t anyone near power.
Freedom of speech, unless it’s speech we don’t like
The GOP is full of idiots
EVIL idiots
Evil idiots with POWER.
Power the evil people handed to them.
I got a better bill idea.
The Trump-Epstein act: which mandates the death penalty for pedophiles.
