mriguy @ mriguy @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

White men

So many good shows. All of these, but also: Slow Horses, Bad Sisters, Schmigadoon, and Shrinking.

I’m not sure people from the Siri team are going to be in high demand.

The purpose of these stories is not to convince you to vote for Trump.

By consistently saying “polls show that Trump is going to win by a huge margin”, when he loses by a huge margin, they will have laid the groundwork to cite the polls and say that it’s proof that Biden stole the election. “Trump was so far ahead in the we polls (that we clearly made up) that a Biden win was impossible!”

So… CEOs will cause job cuts in 2024, and have decided to use generative AI as an excuse.

IIRC some red states have already floated the idea of not letting people vote for several years after moving there specifically to ensure that Republicans never lose control.

Edit: Took a few more minutes to look into this, and it appears that Apple covers travel and medical expenses for women that have to travel out of state for care. Although, forcing someone into that position to keep their job is pretty douchey.

And when the Texas government arrests them to keep them from traveling for an abortion, Apple will break them out of jail?

“Asks”? So they can just say “no thank you” and keep their jobs?

No?

Then asks is not the right word.

Not this one - it’s a civil case on the state of NY.

I worry about this scenario:

The right wing justices on the court owe Trump nothing, and can look forward to using their lifetime positions to continue to ruin the country for decades. He was just a useful tool for getting them onto the court. They want Trump to stop bugging them and let them get on with it.

The three Trump justices and Thomas could recuse themselves, citing some previously hidden sense of ethics (and Habba specifically asking them for a quid pro quo).

Then a majority of the remainder would then remove Trump from the ballot.

This achieves 3 things:

1. Republicans would be rid of Trump, because he’s a liability to their long term success. They could nominate Haley or whatever for this cycle.
2. Republicans could shriek (and fundraise) endlessly off of “partisan librul socialist Democrat justices” removing Trump and why they need even MORE right wing justices.
3. Trump’s stochastic MAGA terrorists would focus all their fury and rage on non-rightwing justices (rather than deciding that one of their own was a “RINO” and targeting them).

The only problem with their scenario (for the Republicans and those that control them) is that Trump would freak out and might tell all his followers to storm the Supreme Court anyway.

“Chris Christie is from New Jersey. He can describe the civil war accurately and not have every single one of his white in-state supporters desert him. I’m from South Carolina. I can’t.”

He really should have cut back on his avocado toast consumption.

The thing is, MBS could step in and buy the rights for a lot of money to help him out, then Trump could go “see, it was worth exactly what I said it was!” The Saudis were willing to write off enough money to Musk to help him kill Twitter just to watch it die - they can afford it.

Agreed, I don't see how anyone honest could read any of the letters of secession and not instantly see how slavery is the primary reason.

This is Republicans were talking about. Honesty is a disqualifying characteristic for the party.

I couldn’t give two hoots what he calls himself - how does he vote?

Does he vote for or against laws we would consider progressive? If he votes mostly for them, he can call himself a conservative Republican for all I care.

What I seem to see most on Lemmy is split 50/50 between “EVs are way worse than cars because they are heavy and have tires and tire particulates are FAR worse than tailpipe emissions, and ICE vehicles weigh nothing and don’t have tires anyway” and “EVs are cars and cars are the devil - if you don’t live in a city center and use a bike exclusively you might as well be slaughtering children by the hundreds, because there is literally no moral difference.”

Not even even Trump supporters are stupid enough to believe he’s not guilty. They just don’t have a problem with it.

Under this interpretation, extrajudicial execution of TFG and all his congressional enablers (and problematic SCOTUS justices, and followers) would also be AOK. The law couldn’t touch him. Heck, with enough violence, he could head off any impeachment as well.

I don’t see SCOTUS handing that power to a Democrat.

Although knowing Democrats, they’d do nothing with the power, turn over power to Trump, and be wiped out on January 21st.

Massachusetts as well.

This decision was about whether the whole "not being allowed on the ballot if you incite an insurrection" thing was intended to apply to the president, or just everyone else.

Obviously, by any rational reading of the English language. But law is about arguing over what things that seem obvious actually mean, and this was slapping down a lower court that was arguing that it did NOT mean what it obviously means.

“The decision reverses a ruling by a lower court judge who found Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence, but concluded that, as president, Trump was not an "officer of the United States" who could be disqualified under the amendment. The Biden campaign declined to comment.”

From the Constitution, Article II Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years… :

… No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office…

… Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States…

But sure. The person running the Executive Office of the President is not, in fact “an officer”…