The biggest tragedy of pet ownership is that they just don’t live long enough.
This is true, but there is no ‘long enough’ unless it is ‘from the moment you get it until you die.’ The pain of losing a dog is just an unfortunate part of having a dog and they just will never live long enough for you to not feel that pain.
Maybe this is being too cold-hearted, but we tend to choose pets that live a fraction of a human’s life. There are many animals which could make good pets except they live as long as humans (if not a lot longer).
I think what this article was something like,
The biggest tragedy of pet ownership is that sometimes those pets die far too soon due to illness.
That has nothing to do with a genetic bond with humans.
From your linked article:
More likely, domestication happened slowly, in fits and starts. “This symbiotic or commensal relationship,” says Robert Quinlan, professor of anthropology at Washington State University, “probably initially happened accidentally."
Dogs and humans have a symbiotic bond, as the OP from your original reply said. We did not bond our genes with them, like that episode of Fullmetal Alchemist (I hope).
Sorry to be a “acktually”-type pedant about this, but terminology is important when discussing genetics, otherwise people get confused and end up like the ones that think we can’t be genetically related to chimps because they exist at the same time as we do.
I feel like messing with animals’ lifespans is playing God too much. Then again, we made the Chihuahua, and if anything was an affront to God it’d be that.
My sister lost her dog this weekend in a freak accident and everyone in the family - not just her husband and kids - are devastated. He was such an essential part of every gathering.
I believe this is a part of what a dog does to help teach us about life. Giving us joy and companionship while also teaching us about grief and loss in the end.
I am so sorry for both you and your sister and her family. Thankfully, all of my dogs have lived a full life and when they end came, it wasn’t a surprise. It is so much sadder when it’s unexpected.
I’m sorry. I know your heart is broken and nothing but time can ease it. I lost my cat in January at 15 years old from hyperthyroid related kidney failure. We met when she was a feral kitten and ran out from under a food truck and tried to take me down by the ankle. We bonded instantly. It has me at a heightened state of awareness of the mortality of my two dogs and remaining cat. It hurts like hell and I’m so sorry you lost your friend.
Yep. I can remember this past October when we lost our dog of 15 years, telling myself and my girlfriend that we were never going to avoid this happening to him/us. There was no magic formula or pill or procedure that was going to give him to us forever.
And while it didn’t necessarily make us feel better about it, it made enough sense that it helped us cope with the loss with better understanding.
I know what you are saying, but I don’t agree. I’d take one more year with my dog over no more years any day. Breeding all kinds of crazy types of dogs, but never for a longer life is nuts.
Yes, it would have been better. A longer healthier life for a dog, who says you have to get to that point? Maybe we will bring a whole new meaning to the word family dog, passed down generations.
Would it be long enough? I doubt it. At least I know that no matter how many years any of my dogs lived, even if it was 50 years, if I outlived, them it wouldn’t be long enough.
It’s not about how much is enough, that is a weird way to think about it. Would I have liked to have another year with him? Absolutely, he died too early.
That’s literally what the article said, so blame the article. It says, “The biggest tragedy of pet ownership is that they just don’t live long enough.” It’s right there at the top of the post. That’s what I was commenting on.
As a European, I hope my American friends will do their uptmost best to ensure Diaper Don does not get elected for the sake of democracy and humanity. We are at the brink of a timeline that resembles a lot like the 1930s, and wish we are not going to relive those times again.
It doesn’t matter if he gets elected or not. Enough people support the kind of fascistic nationalism that he represents that we will have to deal with it eventually. History says that voting will not be sufficient. We should all prepare ourselves for that.
It should also be noted that this is not limited to America. Fascism is gaining ground all over the world, especially in the West. I believe that’s largely due to traditional politicians being unwilling or unable to address the concerns of their voters but ultimately the cause is largely irrelevant. We are all going to have to remember the lessons of history in one way or another.
This so much. Neoliberalism has made a husk out of our societies and lots of folks are getting left in the dust. I shudder to think of the challenges young folks will face in lifting themselves up and out of their birthtraps
Oh yes, not saying this is an American problem. We have in Europe (including my own country) far right winged idiots being elected (largely thanks to disinformation but also due to bad policy and decision making as you very well stated). But we cannot deny that whoever becomes a president in the US, has also substantial influence on what is going on in the world. Fuck facsism.
Letting it burn down would be best, it’s going to be torn down and destroyed anyway if it was that hard to put out.
Edit: not sure I empathize with those downvoting me, I dont see a world where a private business’s asset, which is covered by insurance, is worth the health and safety of an entire community for any length of time.
Sorry Helen, we can’t run your dialasys machine because it would inconvenience Mr. Landowner. Sorry Martha, I know you’ve just been in a lab accident and your skin is melting off, but we need the emergency shower water for Mr. Businessman so that he thinks we’re doing work instead of caring about our community.
Mains water, however, is accessible everywhere and ready to go while the golf course probably needed pumps placed to extract, or longer travel and downtime.
the town had an elevator which implies that they have the ability to go to farms without water (the well for drinking doesn't count for fires). I would expect this to include the ability to pump from the nearest lake to whatever farm they are called to (most of mn is not more than a long walk to a lake - but I don't know where this town is)
Fire departments who serve farms can get water from a lake instead of having to go all the way back to town. If you are in the city they will use fire hydrants but if not they have water trucks that refill at the nearest pond.
the grain elevator implies there are farms around so they would have this equipment.
Normally farms don’t have large pools of water and may only have enough pumping ability to supply their meager farm needs. They would at that rate be better off putting pumpers near a stream or other natural water source. Farms are rarely capable of supplying the amount of water needed for only 1 truck.
That far out, the golf course was probably on an independent grey-water system and not the main grid. Probably had tankers pulling it straight from the wells and driving it to the site of the fire.
I’m betting that they used water from a pond on the local golf course, which requires trucks and pumps to draw from. Asking residents to stop using water keeps it available at the hydrants, which are considerably easier to access.
I don’t believe in dress codes being of benefit, but this is strictly Texas being a dick.
I was in the Army (for school, the cause sucked), and African American soldiers were often CORRECTLY given a shaving profile, aka a waiver due to ingrown hair shaving issues especially in field conditions, and it wasn’t a deal. At all. In the fucking military, the (understandably) pedant, rule follower, uniformity kings.
The Texas government just doesn’t want to make reasonable accommodations because they’re racist pieces of shit who believe they can legislate those outside their rigid, white nationalist, stepford aspiring in-group out of existence.
I’ve never had a school uniform but someone told me that it could help hide “class” differences if someone were not able to dress their child as well. I’m not sure how well I buy that but it sounded like a possible benefit.
Uniforms for me weren’t explicit but more “polo shirt and pants” so it was less a uniform and more a very strict dress code - this was also only in middle school so that kinda tracks with when kids can be some of the most vicious about it
It doesn’t work. You can still always tell the kids who have new uniforms vs those who had to buy second hand, or those who have designer backpacks or shoes from those who have Walmart versions. The rich kids who were raised to be assholes will still find something to look down on the poor kids about. Best friend was stuck in private school for years and hated it because of this.
sorry can you expand a bit on the ingrown hair part? It doesnt make sense to me why one race would have issue with that while the rest doesnt
Good question! Would that we were all comfortable expressing our ignorance and asking for edification.
As I understand it, black people (and others with similar hair type) have a tightly curved hair follicle. The hair grows out of the follicle springy because it kinks before growing out. Like an extreme version of people with curly hair (who also have a curved hair follicle). This means that if the hair is shaved completely it is more likely to become ingrown.
“Pseudofolliculitis barbae (razor bumps) is a common condition of the beard area occurring in up to 60% African American men and other people with curly hair. The problem results when highly curved hairs grow back into the skin causing inflammation and a foreign body reaction. Over time, this can cause keloidal scarring which looks like hard bumps of the beard area and neck. Shaving sharpens the ends of the hairs like a spear. The hairs then curve back into the skin causing pseudofolliculitis barbae.
A 100% effective treatment is to let the beard grow. Once the hairs get to be a certain length they will not grow back into the skin. For most cases, totally avoid shaving for 3 to 4 weeks until all lesions have subsided, while applying a mild prescription cortisone cream to the involved skin each morning. Shaving every other day, rather than daily, will improve pseudo-folliculitis barbae. If one must use a blade, water soften the beard first with a hot, wet washcloth for 5 minutes. Then use lubricating shaving gel (Edge, Aveeno), and the Aveeno PFB Bump Fighter Razor or the Flicker razor. Shave with the grain of the beard and do not stretch the skin. Use only one stroke over each area of the beard.”
To expand on the other response, the Army doesn’t deny shaving waivers to white guys either. I had one every time I went overseas because my face is right on the line. With a weekend to rest it, hot water and all the products, it goes okay. But without all that I get rashes. So allowances were made.
People from the outside see stuff like the drill teams and forget that we’ve been known to fight in body armor, helmet, and our underwear. They think uniformity has some magical property and miss all the real reasons behind it.
Just go take it back, Russia is so wrapped up in the western front they wouldn’t be able to mount any kind of defense until it was far too late to hold Siberia.
Several sources mention the Mongols deploying firearms and gunpowder weapons against European forces at the Battle of Mohi in various forms, including bombs hurled via catapult.[55][56][57] Professor Kenneth Warren Chase credits the Mongols for introducing gunpowder and its associated weaponry into Europe.[58] A later legend arose in Europe about a mysterious Berthold Schwarz who is credited with the invention of gunpowder by 15th- through 19th-century European literature.[59]
Given how much Russian nuclear maintenance has gone into hookers and vodka over the last forty years, it’s literally anyone’s odds as to whether that shit even leaves the pad before it detonates, if it detonates at all.
All Putin can do is turn the key, aim for Mongolia, and hope it’s not the loss of an entire local region.
And that’s before NATO starts raining down holy hell on him because he just triggered MAD, lol.
Subsidising rent (landlords will raise rents to compensate for subsidy)
Rent caps and rent control (artificial price ceiling creates shortfall in market, leaving people still without adequate housing or on long waiting lists, or landlords will find bullshit reasons to evict tenants and raise rents)
The problem with point 4 is that no developers are going to undertake it unless they can make a significant profit. If the addition of new housing has the potential to lower the ROI where is the insentive to build?
If the government decides that they will be the developer/investor then the whole project is definitely going to lose money because contractors will ALWAYS milk a government project.
The problem with point 4 is that no developers are going to undertake it unless they can make a significant profit. If the addition of new housing has the potential to lower the ROI where is the insentive to build?
Your assumption is that all builders have infinite flexibility and are exactly the same. The real world companies can’t just adjust their staffing and capital equipment based on last hour revenue. There is always someone will to cut into their margins to get a contract.
Imagine you are running one of those companies. You normally make 100k on this type of job, the market is willing to pay 90k. Do you walk or not? If you walk you still have to make payroll this week. Wouldn’t it be better to not make as much money as you want but still make money vs not making any money?
Capitalism is a far far from perfect system, but it really exceeds at racing to the bottom. Someone somewhere is willing to do x for less.
The race to the bottom will work great in underregulated labor markets or anywhere regulations on environmental and safety standards are relaxed. The issue (no problem, because I believe there should be tough regulation) is that there is now a baseline that you can’t really go under unless you cut corners somehow.
I’ve been working in construction in the SF Bay Area for over 15 years.
Right so you can’t think of literally anyway you can follow the rules and make more money? I find that surprising given that I have listed one method in my previous comment and my infrastructure employer is constantly finding tricks to bring the costs down
i wonder how you feel about the guy that literally approached him with his gun out? or the guy that tried to smash his head in with a skateboard? are they ‘heroes’ to liberals? how are they any better if so?
Interesting stance, because his first victim wasn’t armed, and Rittenhouse testified that he knew he wasn’t armed.
He did rush a deranged person running around looking for an excuse to shoot people, that’s true though.
Now, after Kyle murdered that dude, would you say other people in the area might be right to fear an armed murderer, and consider him a viable threat to their and others safety?
the kid was out looking for people to shoot, and had just shot someone. the pistol came out in an effort to get the assault rifle out of the kids hands.
ok so you didn’t pay attention to anything that happened, nor did you listen to any of the testimony given from either side. i now understand you’re arguing from a place of feeling not logic or facts. have a good day.
You’re not saying anything. You’re just telling me I’m wrong. your words are completely empty. this is not what I would call an interesting discussion. I probably wouldn’t like you in real life.
I mean, has George Zimmerman gotten anything that’s “coming to him?”
Seems like he’s been in a total shit storm of events, but suffered consequences for nothing.
Rittenhouse will have his nose so far up the maga go fund me grift should anything ever happen, he’ll never know anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Last I looked he was in financial ruin which is why he had to sell the gun on ebay. He filed multiple failed lawsuits that were dismissed. His wife divorced him. Accused of intellectual property theft.
He does seem to have an “uncanny” ability to avoid criminal liability though.
Have you seen any pictures of him lately? I saw some last summer and he looked like shit. Put on 40 lbs and his face was flushed red. Looked like a young Alex Jones in the making.
I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.
Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.
From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.
He wasn’t charged with 1st degree murder, that’s nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. Here’s the wiki.
I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I’m not making that up.
Everyone I’ve talked to about this incident who believes he should’ve gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I’m not surprised that people think he’s a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it’s accuracy.
Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.
All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.
First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.
I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.
They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.
I’m sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn’t realize the wiki omitted that.
The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I’m not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists “mitigating circumstances” that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It’s 940.01, found here.
The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.
For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.
For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.
The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.
Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.
The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.
Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.
I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn’t live in and got away with it.
What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom’s house),to help protect his family friend’s business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.
This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.
And he wasn’t charged with 1st degree murder, that’s misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.
Thanks for this. I knew some of this but for some reason just adopted the “Rittenhouse bad” brain worm. Maybe it was things like how quickly he fell into the arms of the alt-right crowd and seemed to be fine embracing them. Who knows. But thanks for the refresher. I think I needed that.
Last spring, two students in that year’s English class had complained to the school board, alleging that “Between the World and Me,” which contends racism is embedded in American society, made them ashamed to be White.
I have the same thing with my dog. I made an attempt when I was 18, then got a dog at 20. I’m 24 now and still struggle a lot with depression, wishing the attempt had worked and all that, but would never do it now because I can’t imagine leaving my dog all by himself.
Commenting in both of these comments so y’all both see it, but be careful with having a living thing as your safety net. It’s tough to think about, but at some thine they will pass and the ground will fall out from under you. Speaking from experience here.
Edit: Sorry, not trying to darken an already dark topic.
Yikes. I don’t know a better way to phrase it, but I sure as hell wish someone had said that to me 10 years ago; before my dog who was my safety net got a brain tumor out of nowhere and had to be put down. What do you do when the only thing that’s keeping you afloat becomes an anchor? Animals are absolutely great and I’m not saying they shouldn’t have them or even use them to help mental health. But having a living thing that is the only thing stopping you from self-harm is dangerous.
telling depressed people, “hey, that thing you love? that light in your life? IT’S GONNA DIE!” is really fucked up, and if you don’t know better than not to say things like that, you should say nothing at aall. rubbing it in more and trying to rationalize it with an anecdote about your own horror story hardly makes it better.
if any of us had wanted your advice, we would have asked for it. I’ll listen to my therapist’s advice for an emotional support animal over some stranger on the internet who seems more interested in trolling and attention than being supportive to others.
Right on, best of luck and be safe out there. I was on the fence of whether to post anything or not. Mainly was afraid I’d get the response that I did from the other commenter. If I learned anything from that experience, and closer to what I originally wanted to convey but don’t think I did, is that it’s important to not rely on one thing to keep you going. Having a pet to help keep you going is great, but my mistake was having my dog be ‘the only thing’, so losing him also lost the last thing that was keeping me going.
Anyways, have a good one and give your puppers a hug.
Commenting in both of these comments so y’all both see it, but be careful with having a living thing as your safety net. It’s tough to think about, but at some thine they will pass and the ground will fall out from under you. Speaking from experience here.
Edit: Sorry if that’s dark, not trying to drop the mood on an already moody topic.
One of my greatest regrets is dropping out of college. I’m doing ok, thankfully, but it hasn’t been an easy path.
This is one of those regrets in life you can actually undo!
I dropped out of Community College after a year there at age 19. I went back to that same Community College at about 34 and finished my Associates Degree at night/weekends while working full time. One really nice thing was all of my credits earned as a teenager were still valid after almost 14 years away. I meant that my time there as a teenager wasn’t wasted. I transferred all my credits to University again doing school at night/weekends and finished my Bachelors at age 39. It was one of the best decisions of my life.
Before going back to school I had all kind of anxiety about it. It was much easier as mature adult than as a teenager. I’m happy to share advice or just encouragement if it will help you.
As society gets more complex, it’s more important than ever for everyone to be more educated. The death of journalism, rise of online scams, gutting of consumer protections and degeneration of politics makes it more critical for people to learn to think
LPT: If your doctor firmly believes that you require X treatment/medication/etc. Have them use the specific term "medically necessary". If your insurer kicks it back with that phrasing attached, contact them. Ask for the medical license number of the doctor who indicated that it was not medically necessary. Push for this information (they won't have it) and continue the line of "Someone on your end is making a medical decision against my doctors orders. I require their credentials so I can confirm they are a) qualified to make medical decisions, and b) have a higher education that my doctor possesses."
I speak from experience. Blue Cross has not argued or denied any of our doctors' requests since the second time I used that method.
Had a specialist tell my wife she needed a shoulder replacement. Insurance wanted her to do physical therapy. I was livid. "I want the license number of the doctor on your end who is deciding that physical therapy is going to some how magically fix torn rotator cuff tendons. Telling our medical specialist that physical therapy is required is a medical decision that contradicts their diagnosis that it needs replaced. If we follow your recommendation and it fails, I need the name and license number of who to go after for making that decision. Shielding this professional, and I use that term loosely, indicates that you're willing to assume all the liability when "physical therapy" causes more pain and damage."
It’s nonsense. For one, what is required for a treatment is handled by CMS and the CPT code itself, so the necessary documentation is either there or it isn’t and adding “medically necessary” doesn’t change a damn thing. Secondly, the commercial payors go by their own schedules for what is always, is never, and can be “medically necessary,” “experimental,” “diagnostic-only,” and a ton more. If your orthopedic surgeon is calling for a prior auth for a total knee replacement, it’s always medically necessary; peripheral vein ablation, it’s sometimes medically necessary; chin implant, never necessary.
You literally say it in your own reply. “Sometimes medically necessary”. If you think nearly everything isn’t classified as that by a company who makes more money the more healthcare they don’t cover I don’t know what anyone can say to you to bring you back to the reality of US healthcare. They hire unemployable doctors with histories of malpractice to deny claims in bulk.
It isn’t about what’s actually medically necessary. Insurance companies will use any excuse to pull bs. It greatly matters how a court would view it. People are stupid and could buy the insurance companies arguments that it wasn’t made clear that it was medically necessary. Its also important that scheduled procedures are generally termed “elective” even if they are something like a necessary heart procedure. That terminology could be confusing to people who are not medically literate. Making it harder to make a case against them should something happen. They know this and fuck around. CPT codes only tell them what the condition is. There are some conditions that are not life threatening but still God awful to deal with having. You better believe they try to make people try treatments their doctor already knows won’t work and otherwise try to find excuses for why its not medically necessary.
It doesn’t matter that you don’t think such language should be necessary. This is the real world. Not some fantasy land in your head. Our Supreme Court is clearly incapable of reading the constitution. Why on earth would you think anybody else in this country would be able to read? Especially when they already have policies to intentionally hassle people because it saves them money. Its obvious you’ve never interacted extensively with the American Healthcare system or have only used it with Medicare. Preauths are one of the worst things I have to deal with at my job.
Insurers are known to automatically deny procedures based on what is essentially a flow chart (illegal) rather than a medical professional review of the case (required by law). This is why most insurers back down when a prior authorization is requested.
The whole process is being abused by insurers and if you ask doctors, nurses, pharmacists they’ll tell you the process is being abused.
No one is saying insurers aren’t horrible people and organizations denying care to patients in need. What I am saying is that “medically necessary” aren’t magical words. This is some cargo cult nonsense.
Insurance companies are going to do anything they can to reduce loss ratio, but… That is literally the plot of a John Grisham novel (pre-ACA, so it was a little more complicated than that, but still).
Maybe that’s not the model that real-life insurers should be copying.
“medically necessary” I think is just one of the descriptive words surrounding the language of the laws and forms. Its actually one of a number of phrases that should work as I’m pretty sure I’ve had a couple without it. Realistically any challenge that requires the insurance company to actually get a doctor to review a case should get a successful prior auth.
That’s the logic they all follow … I don’t own $1 billion … I own $1 million and everyone else just calls it $1 billion and I tell some people to believe it and others to not believe it … it’s all a question of faith and belief … my shareholders believe I have $1 billion but we tell the government to believe that I only own $1 million.
When you have access to millions and billions, you can make anyone believe whatever you want them to believe.
It’s all really power in the end. Which is why you see many of the most powerful people in the world nowhere near the “Forbes” list. Money is a representative of power under capitalism, but having more money than everyone else isn’t necessary to have power over them.
Case in point Elongated Muskrat. Sure he is powerful enough to destroy one of the biggest social media networks, but he can’t change the system as a whole, and if the system deems him too much of a nuisance he is gone
Given its $160k a year for an auditor’s salary… maybe $200 when all is said and done with benefits, then $2 million is a solid return on investment. I’ll take it.
Either his actions were treason and the sentence is death or his actions as president were untouchable in which case the president can shoot him without reprise. What a dangerous precedent to set!
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!”
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.