The headline makes it sound like Israel attacked the aid. That’s not the case according to the body of the article. Odd.

If by racists you mean political pundits then yes.

I think you’re seeing a dog whistle where none exists.

People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn’t yours.

I’m not saying the law is good, I’m saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.

It’s not a racist dog whistle. It’s an accurate representation of the polls.

Dude that’s the question they try to answer in the article.

That’s my point. It doesn’t have to look nearly that good.

There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren’t married you could contest paternity.

Why do people think this is a good idea? Gaza isn’t large. It can be leveled with traditional artillery fire (and it has domestic manufacturing of artillery shells). Force Israel to abandon precision munitions and Rafa will look like Bahkmut.

Latinos aren’t a monolith. They don’t vote like a monolith. The article gets close to realizing that, but falls short. At the end of the day Latinos vote R for the same reason White people do.

Nah that bill is pretty bunk and hopefully it gets thrown out super quick. My point is more that the things advocated for in these protests are pretty vile and heartless.

Also they’ll find Hamas selling aid that’s suppose to be given away for free and starving people intentionally to keep it’s coffers full…

Criticism of Israel is one thing, but calling for “Oct 7th every day”, calling for religious war, openly backing not just Palestine but Hamas, saying Hamas I love your rockets isn’t a criticism of Israel, is an endorsement of Hamas.

Probably the latter. Almost nothing that sucked today sucked less 20, 40, 60, 80 etc… years ago. They almost universally sucked more. We’re just more aware.

For example, cops have always been beating black people; but that wasn’t common knowledge for most until recently.

It’s a reasonable question to ask.

There is literally no constitutional basis to suggest that the framers intended for the President to be permanently immune from legal prosecution.

That’s objectively untrue. There’s clearly a basis.

Cut the shit, and just say you want the president to be above the law.

The President is above the law. That’s why the impeachment process exists. That’s why Obama and Bush (and Trump) can’t be prosecuted for spying on every single American citizen. It’s why they can’t be taken to court for manslaughter for the Innocents they kill extrajudicially.

Their decisions have consequences and unless they rise to the level of impeachment their immune from them. That’s how the law is written, that’s how it’s been consistently interpreted.

Well now I feel silly. Brb changing my default path.

If it’s any consolation I hope I’m wrong too. But historically, when it comes to government overreach; I’ve been disappointingly correct.

Can we just have flatpak apps added to the system path by default? Like have a directory /usr/local/flatpak/bin and have links to all the executable show up there. Then users can choose to add that to their path if they wish.