GiuseppeAndTheYeti @ GiuseppeAndTheYeti @midwest.social

Posts

22

Comments

500

Joined

2 yr. ago

How is that misspeak? Even if you're not in active combat you still train to be able to use weapons of war. Its not like COs never touch a weapon again in their service.

You're not wrong but it doesn't even matter what the shareholders want. Company executives are legally obligated to secure profits if they're publicly traded.

What an absolutely tremendous waste of your time. I love that about you. Thanks for teaching me about etymology of a 8th century settlement for almost no reason whatsoever.

Nah. Downvotes should exist to show how unpopular radical or extremist views really are. It doesn't apply here obviously, but I think the reason Meta and Twitter etc. are so negative/toxic is because you can't discourage that content on popular posts. It just looks like there's fewer likes.

Fucking liar. No one washes their car before driving on 44. Now if you said you were going to get a ball peen hammer and put a few cracks in the windshield of your Nissan Altima, some heavy dents in the body, remove the quarter panel on the passenger side, and smash in one of the two headlights...then I would believe you. But you would also need to be driving with a temp tag and merge without looking while going 87 in a 55.

What is there to really dislike about Pokemon? I didn't realize that it was intrusive enough on those that don't play or watch it to trigger such strong feelings.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term "murder" when it's applied to Obama's authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama's time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I'm aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term "public danger" could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

It seems like we mostly agree then. I only disagree with the term "murder" when it's applied to Obama's authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi. That carries with it the presumption of unjust killing that was being pushed by Republicans in the run-up to a 2016 election. It ended up being one of the few criticisms of Obama's time in office(in my opinion). Would I have liked him to take a more hardline stance on his Supreme Court appointment in 2016 and pressured RBG to step down prior to 2016? Yes. And would I have wanted him to put the nails to Republicans to get ACA though with minimal changes? Yes. But overall I felt that in the 8 years he was president we moved forward as a society.

Its not a perfect system, I'm aware. I actually wish that the SC would have taken up the case so we could have a ruling, but I do believe that this particular closed-door meeting constitutes due process. I think its an unfortunate concession to feel more protected from terroristic action, but necessary. I would feel way more comfortable if the term "public danger" could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump). And could only be applied by a committee of legacy members of the federal government shielded from presidential or political appointments. Then any killing carried out should be subject to increased investigation and review to confirm the justification. Any deaths or casualties deemed unnecessary can then trigger criminal actions against those that authorized them.

Fair enough. I just feel as though there are extenuating circumstances surrounding his specific case. I believe that his due process was rather not denied, but expedited due to his own behavior. His due process took place in a briefing room of national security advisors discussing what violence he could be capable of before international police were able to capture him. I believe that he knew that his status as a US citizen would shield him from military action for some time and would be willing to use that time to orchestrate further attacks on western civilians for as long as possible.

I liken it to a hostage situation at a bank. A group of people commit armed robbery and 2 of the 3 have killed civilians. So in response they were killed by a SWAT team. The ring leader is the only one left and is holding hostages in a room with no windows, but is able to communicate with a negotiator. The orchestrator tells the negotiator that he has no intention of killing people but is holding hostages to ensure his safety. There's already been lives lost so how willing are you to allow him to negotiate an arrest without further casualties? He's holding hostages with the threat of violence but hasn't killed anyone yet. Eventually he is killed without incident by law enforcement and the hostages are brought to safety. Is that situation a denial of due process by a court of law?

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision there was already oversight. Al Awlaqi was deemed to be an imminent threat and his killing was authorized by the National Security Council which would include 10-20 other individuals with access to superior knowledge of Al Awlaqi's actions and includes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Homeland Security advisor. All people tasked with positively identifying imminent national security threats. The country he was seeking refuge in had even ordered him to be captured dead or alive. And if you're questioning his involvement in al-Qaeda, he appeared in a video bearing al-Qaeda's emblem praising the two prior mentioned terrorists and called them students of his.

You're asking this question for no reason as the answer is clearly no.

And I don't really think you'll garner much sympathy for Anwar Al-Awlaqi's "murder". He left the United States and was orchestrating terroristic plots to murder innocent civilians in the United States. He was involved in two high profile incidents of terrorism as a commander for al Queda. Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood and an attempted bombing of an intentional flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

I love the memes that this rumor has brought about, but i think for integrity's sake we should make sure people know that we haven't verifiably found it to be true. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-first-edition-couch-erotica/

I do however think its a pretty safe assumption.

The unfortunate reality is that there's plenty of older democrats, "moderate democrats", and independents that also have a negative perception of the LGBT community.

Obama will take the high road. A lawsuit would just make him martyr and give some semblance of evidence to the radical left trying to silence him and his right to free speech like the gag order. Obama really has nothing to gain but a lot to lose. He's more coy than that based on his prior actions. I suspect that he'll sit on that for awhile, give it its time in the media to get as widespread attention as it can, then release a statement enthusiastically endorsing her while citing her policy and character.

The judge in this case is allowing the woman affected by the original murder charge to sue the prosecution for $1 million in damages for jailing her for 2 days. It's a garbage ambiguous title meant to farm outrage when it could instead be instilling hope in progressives wanting to undo the harm that took place.

Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren't aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.

And even if you feel that isn't worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you're expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn't too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.

So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party's favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It's not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They'll just wait their turn.

Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.

That's not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren't truly lame duck.

It's worse than a lot of people are imagining. They were responding to her call about someone that was lurking around her house/neighborhood. The police arrived when she was making dinner and she wasn't in the kitchen. She stood and talked to the two officers with a calm demeanor then they allowed her to/told her to move the pot off the stove to reduce a fire risk. Then the officer charged in her murder shot her from a considerable distance after telling her he was going to shoot her in the face if she didn't put the pot down.

When the other officer said he was going to retrieve the first aid kit, the demented POS that shot her in the face told him not to bother due to the extent of her injuries. Fortunately he went and got it anyway because it seems that he's at least somewhat competent at his job. He also was the only one of the two to have his body cam footage rolling during the whole interaction. The officer charged didn't attempt to turn his cam on until after he fired his weapon.

There's protests scheduled to be taking place today and the vocal minority in and around town are screaming about how there's going to be riot violence and looting of businesses downtown.

What ton of misinformation are you reading? Other than dipshits trying to spin it as a conspiracy to raise his polling numbers.