![](/static/61a827a1/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
Doomscrolling will doom us all. Fatalism is fatal. Rage against the dying of the light. Start building community, or start building bombs. Those are your choices.
Doomscrolling will doom us all. Fatalism is fatal. Rage against the dying of the light. Start building community, or start building bombs. Those are your choices.
The president is also openly corrupt, by orders of magnitude more. That crypto scheme for one is just a blatantly obvious bribery mechanism. Sure, the justices serve for life. But if a president is willing to directly violate explicit court orders, he could easily decide not to leave office as well. He could issue an executive order saying, "in my opinion, the two-term limit doesn’t apply because <bullshit reasons.> And then when the court rules against him, just ignore their ruling. A lawless president is a president for life.
Ultimately, philosophically, I don’t see why a president that openly defies the law should enjoy the protections of the law. Want to be lawless? Then you can be an outlaw. Those who live by the sword should die by the sword.
Maybe not in terms of criminal accountability. But again, the court has ruled against Trump numerous times. The idea they blindly support everything he does is pure fiction. In his first term, they ruled against him many times.
They would have checks and balances. They could still be removed by impeachment. Members of the court would still have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Couldn’t the same be said for impeachment and conviction in the Senate? If Congress can simply remove a president they don’t like, how does this not end up making kingmakers like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome?
The court has ruled against Trump on numerous occasions. The idea they blindly support everything he does is simply not backed up by reality.
Did they rule that he has broad immunity? Yes. But ultimately they ruled it in a way that puts them as the arbiter of which acts have said immunity.
You will end up paying the share of taxes to your state government that you currently do to the federal government. If the federal government collapses, all 50 states are now de facto independent. Those states can now start forming a new country or new collection of countries as they will.
Fuck! I knew I should have stocked up on bauxite!
Even better, add emotions!
Season with salt until it tastes angry.
I prefer milligallons myself.
Microacres^(3/2)
Anesthesia is different from sleep.
deleted by creator
These companies don’t realize what century they’re living in. The advantage of a physical store is that you can get what you want NOW. Not tomorrow. Not two days from now. Not whenever Amazon finally gets around to delivering it to you. You can go to a store and get what you need NOW.
That is the entire reason for these stores to exist. Theirs is a market of convenience. But they can’t seem to realize that.
Exactly. Their ONLY virtue is convenience. Either you’re there for a prescription and buy something because you’re already there, or you’re just looking to do a quick stop. They’re basically a glorified convenience store that happens to have a pharmacy attached. Their prices are high, but they do have convenience on their side. You don’t have to walk across half a mile of parking before getting to the front door. You don’t have to walk into a giant warehouse store that corrals you into shopping in a giant counterclockwise loop. Walgreens does have the convenience option over shopping at a big grocery store.
And this is what is so bone-headed about these locking cases. Again, their ONLY advantage is convenience. If they’re going to slow things down by putting a bunch of barriers between me and the things I want, I might as well just spend the same amount of time, go to the full-sized grocery store, and save some money.
Because it’s clearly being banned, not because of privacy violations, not because of the nefarious impact of a foreign government, but because of the content that is shared on it. It is the only major social media platform with a strong pro-Palestinian viewpoint on it. And the people in Congress have been caught on camera explicitly stating this is why they want to ban it.
I hate Tiktok. I don’t use it. Never have. But I still don’t want to see the US turn its internet into the Great Firewall of China 2.0.
The leaders in Congress cannot stand the idea of there being a social media platform that is popular in the US that isn’t hosted in the US. Why? The answer is simple - control. All the US social media platforms are heavily influenced by the US government. Hell, most of them openly contract with the NSA. Facebook is an NSA contractor. These platforms get a ton of money from the US government. And despite what conservatives bitch at in regards to “being censored,” the real censorship is against anything that doesn’t advance US power and influence. Outside of Tiktok, the major platforms heavily censor pro-Palestinian messages and stories. Go to r/worldnews and post anything other than “Palestinians deserve to be vaporized,” and you’ll be banned within 5 minutes. It’s literally that bad. Even when outright bans aren’t in place, the platforms will severely down shift any pro-Palestinian content and keep it out of peoples’ feeds.
“Beware of he would would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.”
“You’re always trapping people in games! Stop trapping people in games!”
There are more things in Heaven and Hell then are dreamt of in your philosophy. This one specifically is from Hell.
Here’s how to improve it:
Make you have to mouse click the button. However, it has to be a right click. Specifically, a right double-click.
It’s part of the common law tradition though. Could it not be brought back?