What a power move that could be.

“Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”

They are both obviously old, so a couple sitting down breaks in the debate seems legitimately reasonable.

I’m in my 40s, and while I could stand and talk for 90 minutes, it would be pretty uncomfortable and my back would be aching a bit by the end. I don’t think I could do it at 80.

I bet Simone Giertz’s Truckla had working windshield wipers…

Front seat? Sure. Back seat? Nah. You have to remove paneling, pull a tab up, then pull a cord forward. That is a three step, non-obvious and non-intuitive way to open a door.

Think of it like a river. If you were getting washed away down a river, would you try to save yourself by swimming up river to where you were? No, you swim to the bank and make your way back from there.

A rip current is just a river in the ocean.

Edit: meant to reply to Not_Rick

It’s the tenets of a religious organization, so public schools should not endorse them specifically.

Interesting read, thank you for that!

It’s the 7 tenets, not ten non-commandments. And they’re really good and honestly better to have in the classroom.

Neither should be in classrooms except in relevant textbooks.

Seriously. He said his defense attorney was inadequate and asked for a different attorney. The judge said you take this one or you decide to represent yourself. And then the defense attorney asked to withdraw.

He never chose to defend himself. He never got the option to continue with his (to his mind) inadequate attorney. They made him defend himself for even questioning if he could get another attorney.

And then instead of explaining or trying to rectify the situation, she just yelled at him and sicced her goons on him.

It’s not even a “gotcha” question. He seems to be clear that his girlfriend’s abortion allowed her to live her best life, and he supported it. So it stands to reason that if he’s voting to restrict abortion, that there must be some line between his girlfriend’s situation, which he supported, and what he votes to restrict. And asking that question is key to understanding his position (if giving him a whole HEAP of benefit-of-the-doubt he doesn’t deserve).

If he wanted to maintain any kind of consistency, he could have simply said “it’s legal right now, so it was her decision and she was able to get one, and if there is a financial burden in that I should take equal responsibility. I don’t think it should be an option, but I can’t make her choose not to when it isn’t illegal.” And that would be that. Even the “best life” thing could be squared away: “It’s never good when a life that should come into this world never sees daylight, but there are, of course, some options that are available that wouldn’t exist with a child, and she has those options. Many women have children unexpectedly and have rich, fulfilling lives, even if they weren’t what they planned. What I meant by her best life is to say she could continue on the path she found to be best, before she found out she was pregnant.”

I’m about as pro-choice as it gets and even I can come up with some shitty justifications for his bullshit hypocrisy. So it’s not just that this guy is a hypocrite, he’s also an idiot. If you’re incapable of explaining your actions and voting, you have no business running for any political position.

I read the bill, it’s very short and to the point, and just makes some very small, seemingly uncontraversial additions to the bill. I am curious what possible justification they have for opposing it? That a Democrat sponsored it maybe? Their finger slipped?

Edit: a Republican sponsored it. I understand even less.

Seriously. Like, okay, you think that the whole transgender thing is a fad, or “attention-seeking,” or any other nonsense. Everybody is entitled to opinions, even stupid ones. I guarantee I have some stupid opinions, myself, about things that have no relevance to me.

But feeling the need to express those opinions, and feeling so strongly about it, and wanting to make legislation for it, and pretending you give two shits about girls’ and womens’ sports when 5 years ago you were talking shit about the WNBA because they were a joke to you, when you will knowingly interact with a trans person once or twice in a year, maybe, in your little podunk town, and since you are talking to them you won’t have an opportunity to use a pronoun for them… well there’s obviously something else at work here.

It makes it clear it’s just an excuse to hate, because trans people don’t affect them in the slightest.

You know who I don’t feel bad for? The clerk flying a Trump 2024 flag after he tried to go against the will of the people, claimed a fraudulent election, and incited his supporters toward insurrection. And then for the next several years heard lie after lie about the thing that she had expertise in.

This is beyond leopards eating faces. This is still voting for the leopards eating face party after they’ve already been taking bites of your face.

So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let’s make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.

It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.

Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.

Also, that it’s worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.

I’m struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It’s not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it’s about killing people just to kill bad people.

Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn’t help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there’d be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.

You also have to vocally state that you are invoking your right to remain silent. Just remaining silent is apparently not enough.

Additionally, the request for a lawyer must be unequivocal. Not “I think I need a lawyer,” as much as any reasonable person would consider that as a request for a lawyer. McDaniel, the guy in the linked case got railroaded after saying that he thinks he would rather have a lawyer there to speak for him, and the claim that the questioning should have stopped was dismissed because he hadn’t requested a lawyer, only that he thought he needed a lawyer.

Judges bend over backwards to let police mess with our rights, so clarity and assertiveness are a must.

“United States… Space Corps?”

Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!

No American (except German History majors, I suppose) hearing the word “Reich” thinks of anything except the third one.

This is like the white dude rolling into a party with swastikas on their coat and then claiming it has other cultural meaning. So what? You and we all know that the reason the reference was brought out is to make you think of Nazis.

Ah, that makes sense. I’m in the military, and we have a similar thing for people who are either due to transfer or retire in the next couple months: FIIGMO. It means “Fuck it, I’ve got my orders.” (For clarification, orders in this context are travel/Primary Change of Station/Retirement Orders, a written and signed document saying they’ll be leaving)

It seems like a weirdly deliberate term for something that has been around forever and typically just attributed to low morale. It makes it seem like a person unhappy at work but just doing their job is somehow sticking it to their boss/company. I’ve dealt with a lot of people like that, both as a peer and a supervisor, and it was never them doing anything intentionally, just being unhappy (and most of the time it had nothing to do with the pay or conditions, just not being suited to the job or general attitude toward life). They could often be a blight on morale, though, so I see how it could be frustrating for supervisors (and peers, they made work miserable for everyone).

I’ve never understood “quiet quitting” as a term. When did just doing your job become something that needs a term? “Working adequately” seems more apt, but I can’t imagine the context that would be worthy of discussion outside an employee review.