Thanks for the enlightening framing. When they’re rounding up people they don’t like we should tell them it’s ok, it’s been worse
Nobody fucking cares. This isn’t some academic exercise to rank crazy times. This is the very real political strategy of a party about to take power in the US. This view from nowhere shit is so exhausting.
Yes, this is probably the real motive. “Arrest and execute my political opponents” cannot be ignored by the military without a coup or being in dereliction of duty. I think another nefarious change here is not that the actual power has changed but that the Supreme Court has given face value validity to illegal acts. The President has always has unmitigated pardon power for federal crimes. They could order the military to commit illegal acts and pardon them preemptively so that they were not punished. A reason why that hasn’t happened is that the optics of that are horrifying - the President and military must admit to a crime being committed to pardon that crime. With this ruling there is no admission, no face value legal wrongdoing, and plenty of plausible deniability.
SCOTUS knew precisely what they were doing. This is a significant expansion of presidential power, yes. But they know that the real issue is political. What they want is the President to be able to argue that illegal things are legal because the President did it, instead of arguing that illegal things are not punishable because the President pardoned the criminals.
The President can literally shoot someone in cold blood, in public, and as long as they can deem it an official act it is de jure legal.
You might be asking why the right isn’t worried that Biden will abuse this - the answer is because they know he doesn’t have the balls. The left still thinks we’re in 1968 fighting for rights with mostly peaceful protests. We’re in 1938 and we’ve already lost.
Because being a fringe lunatic insurrectionist fascist is forgivable. Left or right, everyone either assumes Trump is so bad or so good that he is beyond criticism.
Same as it ever was. No one, left or right, expects the Republicans to change or get better.
No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.
If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing
That bunch of idiots are the ones who control the tanks, artillery, planes, and funding for infrastructure that is required to keep nuclear plants from melting down
Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.
Oh so it’s not meant to be quantitative but instead is meant as “most” to “almost everyone.” Makes sense, I thought he was doing the math and I was very confused lol
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
I wouldn’t argue “old people suffer from cognitive impairment” is a valid criticism of a politician without clinical evidence that that politician is suffering from cognitive impairment. This just smacks of ageism.
Read the room