For SCOTUS to rule in his favour would require them overturning the constitution itself.
Nah, all they’d have to do is make up a bullshit interpretation that fits the political opinions of them and their billionaire friends. That’s basically what the majority of them are there for to begin with.
Hell, I even miss Fortnite Bob!
Yeah they do. The fact that the company structure is deliberately set up to hide who owns what is one of the main impediments to carrying out the sentence.
They can’t take something that belongs to a shell corp that he’s not listed as the sole owner of until they prove that he de facto is, and a lot of it is registered in his parents’ name for that exact fraudulent purpose.
Toddlers: about 21 deaths per year
Last I checked, there was more weeks than that in a year. Did those fuckers in HR go and change it?
Talk about the Terrible Twos!
Uwe Boll introducing himself very carefully…
The good people or the pious people? Because those two Venn circles barely overlap at all…
Ever since The Incident, I and the bystanders also associate Taco Bell and Hell closely…
It wasn’t just a weeklong bender
Right, forgot the s in weekslong 😁
you fucking hippie.
Better than a celibate hippie. Those guys are WEIRD!
You said you would always be there for me
And I will! When the rain starts to fall claps 4 times while swimming fully clothed in a New York fountain
You see, Satan and I were at the tail end of a weeklong bender and getting kinda bored…
“a radical (…) approach designed to strangle the oil and gas industry”
If only!
Ask @SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world. They originally went by “Charlie”.
No, because land area determines the legislature and not population
That’s a big part of the reason too, yes.
AmericaAmerican law leans hard to the rightweit values land area more than people
Fixed it for you. And guess who’s had ample opportunity to do something, ANYTHING, about that throughout the decades and have hardly even tried beyond empty campaign ad sound bites? Starts with a D…
This is the best our government can do
Ridiculous defeatism.
because it’s structurally deficient
Which SOME people have the power to do something about but actively avoid addressing outside of fundraising appeals.
Americans are pretty dumb.
Some are, but NOWHERE near the majority. For example, the largest share of the population that ever voted for Trump was 20%.
That’s an imperfect analogy
Of course it’s imperfect. It was dumbed down for you to be able to understand it. Unsuccessfully, alas.
It’s more like defending yourself
No it’s not. Saying that everyone being kicked in the head should stop complaining about the assault and in stead thank the assailants for not being the other, worse, assailants is NOT defending anyone.
You may still get stabbed
Yeah, that’s the other thing I didn’t cover: sometimes the kicking assailants will just straight up let you be stabbed anyway even if you elected enough of them.
They’re being paid much more by the steel toe boot association and the combat knife manufacturers than anyone trying to make the assaults stop, after all…
you have a better chance of stopping the attacker than doing nothing
Protesting inaction in the face of fascism isn’t nothing.
Advocating for the rotten status quo that allowed the rise of fascism, though? THAT’S doing nothing.
Going so far as shaming dissenting opinions, lumping everyone who’s not satisfied with negative peace (the absence of disorder) in with the fascists? That’s WORSE than doing nothing.
Nah, you’re thinking of a coupe.
A coup is a liquid meal, sometimes useful for art if you’re weird enough.
Nope. That’s both a strawman and a false dichotomy.
I’m saying that the Dems aren’t good enough.
“Slightly better than literal fascists” is not a high enough bar and demanding more isn’t the same thing as endorsing the fascists.
If that’s still too hard to understand, let me put it this way: in spite of having done nothing to deserve it, you’re being given the choice between being kicked in the head or stabbed in the liver.
Objecting to the lesser assault is NOT a request to be stabbed.
Democratic majorities are rare
Because the Dem leadership is obsessed with appealing to an increasingly tiny portion of the electorate, alienating everyone to the left of Reagan who isn’t in the “Blue No Matter Who” cult of settling for second worst.
The last time Democrats had control of Congress we got the ACA and DACA
Which are both extremely watered down versions of what they initially promised. This due to the efforts of the very right wing Democrats the leadership keeps pushing over more progressive candidates whose policy positions are more in line with those of the population in general rather than the rich people, corporations and management side industry groups who donate a shitload of money to both Republicans and conservative Democrats.
seems to mostly offset the loss of total productivity with better productivity-per-time
Actually, it MORE than offsets it, leading to MORE overall productivity from not having exhausted and unhappy workers
Dem majorities rarely do either, tbh.
The Dem leadership consider compromise for the sake of compromise the highest virtue and refuse to adjust that belief to the realities that
A) The GOP is now a literal fascist party,
B) The fascist GOP does not ever negotiate in good faith, and thus
C) any compromise with them will be unacceptable concessions in exchange for little to nothing.
Yeah, they need the Toilet Locator app!