Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)QU
Posts
5
Comments
764
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Can the president simply order them to arrest people for no good reason?

    Yes. Just like you can. It's not hard to give an order.

    If you want to know whether or not the agency will listen and obey... that's a whole other question and gets into dangerous territory when we know the POTUS loves being a dictator.

    Last time I checked, the alphabet agencies weren't Trump's "minions", and they actually didn't like him very much.

    Then you checked wrong. The POTUS is the head of the executive and the alphabet agencies are within said executive. POTUS is at the top.of their food chain, same as the military. As I said, though, it can get arbitrarily nuanced when you ask if a given agent will obey an illegal order or not.

  • Bearing in mind the only powers Dem House members have currently are introducing bills that won't pass or helping the Reps pass a bill that will hurt you and yours, how would you like them to spend their time instead?

  • So he was unable to go to the bathroom, I guess? Because the plane was not at the gate yet?

    Well in that case, as disgusting as this may be, you can't fine anyone for having bodily functions. I believe peeing in a cup is the right thing to do. Better than on the floor.

    Why is this such a thing on Lemmy? Why do people comment on articles they haven't read?

    From the article:

    She said the man was “obviously quite drunk” and spilled urine on a flight attendant as he left the plane, it reported.

    He was drunk and making drunk decisions.

  • Anyone who disagrees with the tribe is "trolling," that's how bad it's gotten.

    That would be bad enough if they didn't then also advocate incarcerating people for disagreeing with them.

    I think Denolition Man should be required viewing for any conversation about good vs bad laws. It's worrying how few people seem to be aware of the ideas in that movie.

  • Much like in the French revolution but much worse, people want to kill and then eat anyone they decide has too much money. Because of course, the definition of "rich" will wildly vary based on how much the angry crowd wants someone turned into burgers.

  • The problem with your attitude is that, by definition, free speech is only a useful right when it protects unpopular speech. The law at hand here isn't a surprise (the UK hasn't got free speech as an enshrined right), but it is certainly a particularly glaring red flag that there is absolutely nothing stopping them from e.g. passing a nearly-identical law copying Thailand about the royal family and putting in prison anyone who calls Prince Andrew a pedophile.

    The vast majority of important free speech cases throughout history have involved the most deplorable people making the most deplorable kinds of speech, but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent if the KKK hadn't won their landmark case.

  • You could read the article. The majority threshold is based on seats, not members.

    The spate of early departures means that Republicans can soon only afford to lose one single vote when all lawmakers are present and voting, since 216 votes would constitute a majority.