As a gun owner, yea I fucking agree. Get a co cenceal carry and carry that shit in and out of the car. Di not leave and and do not leave it visible. Responsible gun owners don’t have any of these issues. But look at the area the kids were in and the illegal shit they were already doing, that shit is being overlook by almost everyone here just cause a gun was involved. Ffs.
Well legally they don’t have access to firearms. They also shouldn’t have access to Heroin, and legally they don’t, but it killed 3 of my friends before we even graduated, so in practice…
It costs too much to be out and be social. There is no place for people to congregate that doesn’t require you to spend money. Even churches have $ expectations. In most places the local public library is the last free third space. I know everyone seems to love remote work, but for me remote work forced the place of my biggest stress to be in my house and I hate it. I’ve been mostly remote for the last 13 years and I’ve realized that I need an onsite work place so I can maintain my home as my place of relaxation and escape.
I know it's tough when you can't separate work and home. I don't know what your setup is, but I only use the work laptop and not the monitor and dock they sent so I don't have to give permanent space to work stuff. When work is done the laptop closes and gets put in the work backpack next to my desk.
Likewise, I commute to my home work by going on a 15 minute walk around the neighborhood before and after so I get some time separation. Giving myself time after work especially to mentally come home was important.
I understand. I was a software developer and engineer for twenty years, complete with quad display and everything. I, painfully, switched to laptop only even before COVID so that I could be productive while traveling. But I kept a dock on my office. When I needed more resources than my laptop had, I started using servers in AWS. I understand wanting the benefit of the extra displays, but I decided that my personal boundary was not giving up the space in my home. So when COVID hit I permanently went to single monitor.
I know not everyone can or wants to do that. But if you are struggling with work home separation with remote work, I suggest trying it on case it helps. Your happiness is worth the x% efficiency hit, unless that is the margin that will get you fired.
Same. Dedicated space and being very strict a about actually wearing presentable clothes (at least jeans and tshirts) and shoes. I don’t let myself wear sweatpants or any other “relaxing” outfit. When I’m done with work, shoes and jeans come off. Confy clothes on. It really helps me delininate work mode or home mode.
Not just the cost, but the fact that so many people are working 50+ hours a week just to survive and simply don't have the time or energy. When you've gotta pick up a second job on the weekend to make rent, you're probably not going to have any energy to go out.
<span style="color:#323232;"> Not everyone is so lucky as to have friends to visit - there used to be places where one could socialize without spending money, and without having to entertain a vice like the bar or casino.
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> There’s really no options for folks to go and just meet similar minded people, so new friends are just harder and harder to find as we get older.
</span>
Idk how I made that font happen but I’m leaving it there.
What places are you talking about? I can’t think of anything that would’ve existed that doesn’t now.
It’s certainly true that more people are spending time at home with Netflix or video games that might have chosen a book and/or a more social space though.
“They shouted ‘nr’ and ‘ft’ at me to make their point. However, I served in Iraq. I never back down. Ever.”
I don’t understand this take. Because he served in the military, he won’t stop being allies with people even when they attack him and call him hateful slurs?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the “I served in Iraq, so I’m a doormat” argument before…
Iowa used to be purple, it’s since turned into a red shithole. You got a few bright spots in Des Moines and Iowa city, but the rest of the state is rednecks and meth heads.
That’s 'cause it is. There is no such thing as “red states” and “blue states;” there are only states that are a slightly higher percentage rural or slightly higher percentage urban.
I didn’t mean to suggest “outnumbered;” I meant to say that the urban/rural percentages are slightly different between states and that that’s what makes the difference in ideology.
More concretely, it isn’t that Southerners are worse than anybody else; it’s that rural folks everywhere are equally terrible. Urban southerners are just as cosmopolitan as northern ones and rural folks from (for example) Oregon are just as backwards and racist as rural folks from Georgia. The only thing that makes Oregon a “blue state” and Georgia a “red state” is that metropolitan Portland etc. make up a slightly higher percentage of Oregon’s total population than metropolitan Atlanta etc. make up of Georgia’s.
I would like to see this, although I wonder if the correct answer is that religion is not a protected group. If religion is a protected group, this is a hate crime.
Come now, we both know Christians would just then cry that non-belief isn’t a religion.
In fact, I’m pretty sure I remember hearing that come up in the past… They’re using motivated reasoning. They want a specific outcome, not a set of principles applied.
Sucks for them. They apparently haven’t heard of Title VII of the Civil rights act.
"Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
“Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities.”
Those quotes are from the US customs and border protection website here. Straight from the horses mouth.
Oh for sure, it is scary how they can do mental gymnastics like that. All it really takes is a corrupt judge that follows the Bible more than they follow our laws and constitution to be able to sidestep that, too. Thankfully, most judges do make their decisions based on our laws and constitution.
I understand though what we need to realize is that this isn’t simply “non-belief”. Satanic temple members have strongly held beliefs as part of the core tenants of satanism. It’s a non-superstitious religion. It’s just as valid a religion as christianity or islam.
I don’t know the right answer. Religious persecution is a real thing and has caused the deaths of countless people across the years that humans have existed. BUT Christians aren’t being persecuted in America (at the moment at least) and have an undo influence on the levers of power. I feel like a good thing to do would be to give the IRS teeth and and have individual Churches or Church organizations that violate the terms of their non profit status actually lose it and have to pay taxes on the huge amount of wealth they own (mostly land but I am sure other shit).
“I saw the cross and it struck a nerve. When I think of those men in those dresses molesting children… I saw red, white, and blue… and I knew I needed to stand up for those children’s freedom from this den of paedophiles”
This is the news story I’m waiting for. If only the people larping as protectors of children knew the call was coming from inside their own house of worship.
Eh with how this conversation has been evolving lately I’d say this is the worst time to be pessimistic about the possibility of regulation. Is a good time to be loud and angry about it tho
I dunno, maybe this is wishful thinking but to me it seems like a good play. If they rule in favor of him, they're even more likely to win the other trials. If they rule in favor of Trump, they're risking their own necks because they'd be giving Biden free reign to do literally whatever he wants. Threading the needle and deciding something like only Trump is allowed, or only in this specific case it's ok, has no legal justification whatsoever and Roberts isn't crazy enough to attempt it.
I do in this case because Roberts has shown us before that he cares about his legacy. And if he were to (potentially) hand Trump the keys to the kingdom, he'd have to deal with whatever backlash Biden or congress give him first.
Let’s be honest, congress has been a group of self-serving ancients who would rather dig their heads in the sand than actually govern. I don’t know that congress would step up here even in this case.
I do think that Biden would be forced to directly deal with the court and then that would create a constitutional crisis kind of mess that will make 2024 even more awful that it’s already looking to be.
As the previous commenter said, Roberts has demonstrated many times that he cares about the fact that this court will go down in history as the Roberts court, and that it will forever be remembered for Dobbs. He has attempted over and over again to earn back that status of legitimacy, from issuing the first ever code of ethics to rejecting a challenge to the ban on gay conversion therapy.
I do not like SCOTUS at all, I think they’re a bunch of lying motherfuckers right now, but I also think Roberts recognizes the court is still on razor thin ice with the public because of Dobbs. I think they will not save Trump, especially since Trump has nothing to offer them in exchange.
Two of them literally owe Trump their seats on the court. Clarence Thomas and his wife were part of the team trying to help Trump overthrow the election.
They owe him their seat? Nah. That’s not how it works. In a metaphorical sense, sure, you could make that assumption, but the reality is that he literally can do nothing for them. Even if he wins 2024, he can do nothing to benefit them directly, especially not anything that any president couldn’t already do.
…they’d be giving Biden free reign to do literally whatever he wants
I like your premise, but I think conservatives know that normal people don’t use the Oval Office to commit crimes. That’s strictly conservative behavior. Thus, a ruling for Trump would effectively be a ruling to protect conservative presidents.
The White House has ALWAYS been used to commit crimes, it’s part of the job description. The difference is the TYPES of crimes Trump committed.
Enabling, or commiting, mass murder is NOT something the courts can come down on POTUS for, as it’s part of the load bearing structure of our empire, no matter how illegal or immoral.
Paying off pornstars and publicly refusing to return stolen classified national security documents, is so far outside the “norms” of “acceptable” Executive Branch criminal activity that their prosecution doesn’t risk setting a precedent of holding future Presidents accountable for the myriad of crimes they will ALL commit i.e. war crimes.
The White House has ALWAYS been used to commit crimes
In the last 100 years, I think conservative presidents are more widely recognized for their crimes in office. Nixon, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Trump.
I don’t really consider the Clinton BJ scandal to rise to the label of “criminal behavior” the way killing people or destroying foreign governments to benefit corporations does. But that is where the left and the right seem to differ on what behaviors should be most frowned upon. I think the left and right just value human lives differently.
I throught that my specific and intentional language around violence and death made it clear that I wasn’t talking about sex scandals.
Do you really think that only Republican administrations advance the goals of American empire and neo-colonialism? If so, then I hope one day you start reading books.
But, if you’re not that naive and do understand that Presidents of both parties advance those goals, I’d ask you how you think empires are built, maintained, or expanded?
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!”
Has there ever been a dictator who relinquished power after “fixing” things? Yeah guys, I’m going to need some extra judicial powers and have the military become my personal army, but it’s just temporary, I swear.
Cincinnatus is always the classical example, as a senator who was named dictator twice and in both cases relinquished his power as soon as the crisis was resolved.
What’s less often mentioned is that the second “crisis” was just a prominent plebeian undermining the prestige of the Senate by providing cheap grain to the poor during a famine—Cincinnatus presided over the plebeian’s extrajudicial murder, and it’s that as much as his subsequent resignation that made him an eternal hero to the Senate.
To be fair until Augustus there was a particular taboo in Rome of coming off as kinglike, being one guy and making a point of stepping on the Senate’s toes was a VERY fast way to get yourself killed, see also The Gracchi Brothers and Marius.
Romans hated anything to do with royal aspiration so much that one of their most sadistic pleasures was to watch the former royals of newly conquered lands be forced to march in the victory parade of the lead general of the conquest before being ritually strangled. It took being a literal child for the Roman public to hold back from gleefully jeering you for having been a monarch, nevermind being willing to ask for you to be spared from being killed.
Basically just imagine a several centuries long stretch of peak Robespierre paranoia about anything to do with potential plots on kingly aspirations and you can see why some guy deciding to take state business on himself, especially state business that can earn a lot of public support, would be seen as a dictatorship worthy crisis to the Roman Senate.
Yes, the original roman ones. This is the origin of the word. They were appointed for emergencies with a lot of power.
They all gave up their position after a while except for Caesar. When Caesar was appointed as a lifelong dictator, he was shortly after assassinated by most members of the senate. But the turmoil led to the Roman Empire not being “democratic” anyway.
Slight correction, he wasn’t assassinated by most of the senate. There were about 60 conspirators out of 200-300, and only a dozen or so actually participated in the assassination (and only 5 actually confirmed to have stabbed him while still alive). Regardless, it’s still true that they came to that conclusion after Caesar was declared dictator for life and started taking away senate power
I’ve heard the term ‘benevolent dictator’ before, but it might be philosophical. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone capable of assuming the role could remain benevolent long.
Washington was elected in 1788 and re-elected in 1792. However both were unanimous, unopposed, and done solely by the electoral college. Adams/Jefferson in 1796 was the first proper election, after Washington set the 2-term precedent and relinquished power. That precedent was maintained until FDR served four terms during the First World War sequel, which led to the drafting of the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution limiting presidents to two terms in 1947. It was ratified by 36 of the 48 states in 1951.
Also while trying to remember the dates I read Section IV of the 20th amendment. What the fuck is this word salad? Is this the original “Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like??”
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
The original office of dictator as defined in the Roman Republic was exactly that,
It was literally the office of “we have tried literally everything else and still have a problem, you there, you seem like a not idiot person, you can do basically anything you want for the next six months or until you solve the problem, after that we’ll make cool statues of you if you do a good job.”
Given how the reality can get modified over long periods of history, I have to wonder how much those old dictators stepping down were motivated by threats of stabbing if they didn’t.
Despite his relatively old age, [Cincinnatus] worked his own small farm until an invasion prompted his fellow citizens to call for his leadership. He came from his plough to assume complete control over the state but, upon achieving a swift victory in only 16 days, relinquished his power and its perquisites and returned to his farm.
All the media companies wanted to be Netflix and so they invested heavily at the same time and flooded the market. Then wanted make more money so they added advertising. Now they ask why everyone left.
Paramount+ invested in Star Trek but hasn’t really seen a return on investment. The draw of Netflix was a variety of content and no commercials.
I know that. They’re desperate for hits beyond Star Trek. The original plan was new Star Trek every week all year long. Now it’s no Star Trek for months at a time with one show ending (Discovery) and one animated show shuffled off to Netflix. That leaves Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks, and while they seem to be popular, it doesn’t seem to be translating into subscriptions and they don’t seem to have any other Trek shows in the pipeline.
What else do they have? Reboots. A new Spongebob, a new Frasier, a new Beavis and Butthead. No one is drawn to those. And their one attempt at a big budget sci-fi epic that wasn’t Star Trek, Halo, was a complete flop.
I subscribed to it for Star Trek but I couldn’t justify that any longer because I really wasn’t watching anything else.
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t just sell the rights to Netflix or something I’m sure Netflix would buy the right if it was an option. They have had interest with Star Trek in the past but then there was a big falling out because CBS did it badly.
Right but what will happen is the platforms without ads will now fall before the ones with ads and reinforce the idea that more ads = good for business
I seriously have no idea why everyone was stupid enough to make their own version of netflix, and not expect the market to be flooded. The second Disney announced Disney plus, I knew that was the end of streaming and the return of piracy.
The only streaming surface I use is Tubi because they have the most ethical business model, I watch their ads, they show me free movies and shows. They don’t double dip, and as long as they don’t, it will be the only site I don’t use Adblock on
Paramount Plus is so desperate to keep me as a customer that they keep giving me free months of service, without advertising. I just threaten to end my subscription and they're all like, "Augh! Please come back! Look, you can have two more months on us... just don't go!"
There’s nothing quite as pathetic as a massive corporation in tears begging you for your money.
Have some fucking decency, you tried to rip me off every way from here to Saturn for decades, now you come begging for handouts? Maybe cut down on avocado toast and get a second job.
Even if he’s being honest about his intention of coming back voluntarily it’s still a flight risk as there’s the possibility he doesn’t come back, changes his mind, etc. No extradition and he has the resources to avoid it anyway.
According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau, UP recorded over 56,000 cases of crimes against women in 2021 - the most of any state. This includes, rape, rape and murder, and acid attacks.
I’d like to think you’re right, but 2024 will demonstrate that the extremists are well aware of the foothold they’ve gotten in the door. The extremists aren’t going to have to lie that people are doing worse under Biden, and voters won’t care that people are fascist if they promise change and to put food on the table.
Things are going to get worse before they get better.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.