FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

2,027

Joined

2 yr. ago

wouldn’t the state just resue in a higher court?

No, because the constitution prohibits double jeopardy.

The name "National Socialist" was a trick to get people on board.

Sort of. Hitler didn't found the party, he joined it as a mole in order to spy on it for the military. He ended up doing a lot more than most moles, eventually taking it over and expelling the more socialist (though still racist) founders.

Hitler hated socialists and tried to change the name as soon as he took over, but was convinced to keep the name because it had become a popular brand.

I don't remember him actually saying he himself will be going.

FWIW, he has said he wants to "die on Mars".

In some cases, you can be pardoned on the basis of actual innocence.

Probably was referring to this case.

Yes, the organizations themselves are banned.

Expressing support for them is not banned, unless accompanied by those symbols.

Germany bans certain symbols, including the Nazi swastika, the Communist hammer and sickle, and the Hamas flag.

But it does not otherwise ban support of those organizations/ideologies.

Yes. It's projected that if nothing else changes, in 2033 they will reduce payouts by 23% and thus continue operating for the foreseeable future.

But unlike debtors, Social Security can unilaterally reduce its expenses at any time. That's precisely why it cannot go bankrupt or become insolvent.

That window is provided by the CRA and only applies to agency rule-making, which is not the process that Biden used here.

Also the CRA does not allow the President to say "nah". It allows Congress to say "nah".

A declaration of war requires an act of Congress.

Social Security has (a) no debt and (b) a perpetual source of revenue. Therefore, it can never go bankrupt or become insolvent.

The only question is if it will be forced to reduce its expenses by up to 30%.

Biden really hammering home that only the wealthy and well-connected

You are really hammering home that you only pay attention to the wealthy and well-connected.

Diane Nash, Sandra Lindsay, Greg Boyle, Alexander Karloutsos, Medgar Evers, Clarence Jones, Opal Lee, Jane Rigby, Teresa Romero, Judy Shepard, and Fannie Hamer are not wealthy and well-connected, yet Biden awarded all of them the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Fireworks, parades, and a new national holiday.

Yes, also ban Jacobin and all the other non-US propaganda networks.

I'd expect this to be causing people who live in low-risk areas to be subsidizing people who live in high risk areas

To be fair, high-risk people are subsidized in nearly every type of insurance. Often unintentionally (due to actuarial uncertainty) but sometimes it is an explicit goal.

For example, community rating was deliberately introduced to health insurance in order to cause lower risk people to subsidize high risk people (eg those with preexisting conditions).

Is there anything in the law preventing

Insurance companies now have a legal quota, ie a certain percentage of their policies must be in fire-prone areas.

So if their premium is so high that nobody in those areas buys a policy, then they won't meet their quota.

Those "stupid and lazy" users own their phones, not you. They are the admins of their devices, not you. And as admins they should have full control over the security policy, not you.

Interesting paper!

Thank you for the link.

Were you one of the Lemmy users who thought Trump was "universally hated"? If so, you were in for a big surprise there too.