seadan83

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'.

> 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.

The senate was a compromise to give small rural states unequal voting power compared to the more populist states.

The senate is explicitly created to give more power to minorities.

It is not orthogonal. The senate is EXACTLY the mechanism to ensure majoritarian rule is not at the expense of the minority.

The direct election vs not is not consequential. The consequential part is that states get two senators regardless of population.

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.

Um, yes. Science is the best epistemology that humanity has discovered, best being as the most effective way to discover truth.

> I have yet to observe an activist practice objective thinking

It would be a sampling bias fallacy to draw conclusions based on your lack of observations.

Eg: "mountains, never seen them, they don't exist."

It is funny then for a geologist to be considered an activist when they say the mountains most certainly do exist.

Your first paragraph is unfounded. (Fwiw, The other two I found interesting. )

TACO tuesday?

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)

Please explain the senate

> 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.

According to wikipedia for causes of vote in favor of brexit, one third said immigration.

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.