The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
Yes, but that wasn't part of the "lend lease" program.
The quantity of materials sent from the UK to the USSR was significant. Just it was not part of the lend lease program. (Arguably this is something better, just direct aid without strings attached).
The quantities of what the UK gave to the USSR was a sacrifice of blood and treasure: "food and raw materials, roughly £30 billion in today’s money. This included 5,000 tanks and 7,000 aircraft, while public charitable donations provided approximately £5.3 million (roughly £490 million in today’s money) in medical stores...."
"Some of these supplies were purchased in the United States (US) by the UK for delivery directly to the USSR. Most British supplies were carried by sea to Northern Russia, docking at Archangel or Murmansk, by a series of Arctic convoys, which were subject to sustained German attacks from three dimensions from powerful German forces based in Northern Norway" [1]
> I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies
Sounds plausible (I would hesitate to repeat it without seeing the data behind the numbers). I'm curious how the number breaks down as a relative amount.
> Well, First Amendment protects your rights to obscene speech too, so you just affirmed here the license terms are controlling, not First Amendment
Nonsense. Feel free to point out how my comments about just the first amendment is related to you equating that to licensing terms.
> which in all likelihood had most to do with business decisions as WSJ reports
I am not convinced. Please provide the WSJ report. Seems the FCC chair saying "easy way or hard way" was more salient.
To boot, Kimmel is back on the air. If there were substance to the abrupt firing for business reasons, or regulatory, Kimmel would not have been reinstated.
> just pointing out that the airwaves in question are much more restricted than general speech in the United States
I do agree. The restrictions are for obscene speech generally. It is significant when that is extended to political speech.
> United States and debates over what is allowed would not automatically escalate to a constitutional concern.
Indeed. Except in this case we have selective enforcement at the behest of the government for what the government does not like. It is exactly First Amendment territory.
Sure, but the context is America. It would have been helpful to make clear you are referring to other systems of slavery (for which i would still want to see data for).
Again, the resources I found in a quick search state about 5M slaves in Rome, and buying freedom was uncommon.
I think you're assuming that dichotomy. There was an observation that Trump supporters derided liberals for loving biden. The observation pointed out a false equivalence, "the other side is doing the same thing", we love Trump, so they must love their leader too.
Or, do you some sort of systematic evidence that evaluates the politics across all of bluesky in comparison to X? I don't think there is such evidence to know that bluesy is the polar opposite of Twitter.
It's worse than that. Demanding that the job creators and company growers be taxed or stay out. If a team is half H1Bs, it is not because there were Americans waiting for those jobs. These are irreplaceable people (if they could be replaced to not deal with H1B nightmares, companies would readily do so). So, the big irony is these people are job creators.
I think a bigger tax on small companies. I worked on one where the co-founder was an h1b. That company grew to employ about a thousand people. It's job creation.. that would not have happened when the company was young with this tax.
Meanwhile, big tech is sitting on piles of money. I think startups and scale ups will suffer a lot here.
Quick googling (could be wrong), thousands bought freedom, approx 4 million were enslaved. It would have been uncommon, ballpark 0.1% (which still seems high to me. The issue is a very large denominator)
> No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner.
The senate is exactly the sheep. That the senate is now controlled by the sheep is also wild. The senate is what gives a person in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of someone in California. The senate was designed so that the less populous states (the sheep) don't get rolled. That the senate is majority minority is wild.
The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.
You're seemingly equating "obscenity" with "political criticism". I'll note that "political criticism" is offensive when you don't agree with it. The first amendment is exactly for that kind of offensive language.
Per "https://www.joerogan.com/" - Joe Rogan is "A standup comedian for over 30 years, Rogan’s seventh hour long comedy special Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats premiered live on Netflix on August 3, 2024. Rogan’s previous comedy specials include..."
Joe Rogan owns a comedy club in Austin as well. [1]
Joe Rogan is a pretty busy guy.. I would imagine his professional network amongst comedians was pretty large before he blew up as a podcaster. This is not only to say that Joe Rogan has multiple comedies, but is also very likely to be very influential amongst as well.
Indeed, USSR casualties (including civilians) were off the charts. USSR, then China, then Germany and then Indonesia. [0] 'Russian blood' part is something of an understatement.
The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK & the rest of lend lease was split between USSR & China. Take that with a grain of salt)
Not to be taken with a grant of salt, according to wikipedia: "Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production. " [1]
Also per wikipedia, USSR produced about 30k light tanks, 65k medium tanks (eg: t-34), and 13k heavy tanks. [2]
> Yes they are. They are required to compete on a level playing field domestically and they still have to compete with marked up foreign goods.
Well, nu-uh! The "level" playing field concept is flawed here. Second, if everyone else becomes less competitive, that does not mean you are 'more competitive'. In a relative sense yes, but in an absolute sense no. A tariff is like a track meet where your competitors get whacked in the knees.
Now, I did say "tend" to be the wrong tool. If another country is actually flooding your market with cheap products (at a loss), in order to drive you out of business, tariffs make sense there. So, tariffs can be good against government subsidized industries. Tariffs countering other tariffs is simplistic, there are other countries in the world and global markets are large and well.. global.
Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
Even if someone concedes "good point", it does not mean they frequently are debating in good faith. My view of the "very often in bad faith" is not being aware of a single position where he evolved. For example, not only saying "good point" but also "you're right."
Your retort, my comment, the comment I responded to all seem very predictable. Charlie Kirk's debates seem to be a Rorschach test.
Google AI says similar when asked "how often did Charlie Kirk debate in bad faith". The response lists lots of criticisms, but also that defenders point out that Kirk did at least engage in open debates (which is commendable even if not always done in good faith, it was some level of dialogue at least).
There are other sources that indicate there are quite a few of these bad faith examples (not just my words, not just my anecdata):
> "When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said. [1]
> "But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said. [1]
I've seen debates with Pastors, and others, where opinions do change - the tenor of those debates is all quite different. I don't see the same talking points constantly brought out even after someone thoroughly debunks one (from a previous debate).
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.