Right?

Unless it’s a cause you’d donate to, and by extension donate your music to, get it back!

The SCOTUS is a distraction, as they’ve got no real power to enforce their decisions.

This is something I’ve been thinking about more and more.

With our three branches of government, it’s up to the executive to enforce the laws, and by extension, the rulings of the judiciary.

What’s the failsafe mechanism for when the executive doesn’t like a ruling and has no respect of law, or for the system?

What happens after the supreme court says, “Hey President! What you’re doing is unconstitutional and you must stop immediately.”…and the president just goes, “Actually I don’t care what you say. I’m still doing it. Have a wonderful day and go fuck all nine of yourselves.”

Not only that, but there’s a 100% chance they sell this shit to you as a forever mouse, then in a few years if it’s not making them money hand over fist, they’ll discontinue it and keep your money.

As much as I hate to speak in defense of her, I have, on occasion, been outsmarted by pets.

It’s worth keeping in mind that:

A) The only poll that matters is the one on Nov. 5th

and

B) Before that, the only people that you can poll are people who are fired up enough about their candidate to agree to participate.

A resigned, grudging, or “meh” vote for Biden would count just as much as a red hat wearing, sign displaying, rally attending Trump vote…but only one of those two cares enough about polling to participate in one before election day.

With Harris, I’m not so sure she will get that many more votes than Biden would have…but more of those voters are of the more motivated kind who will voluntarily participate in these polls.

pull strings from every conceivable angel.

A thread from their heavenly robes.

I mean…lots of kids have had to deal with worse…my main frustration is that we could have given them so much better with relative ease.

My grandparents were born in the 30s, growing up in the Great Depression (all but one, who had the awful luck to be born in the Philippines, and instead of the depression, got to experience brutal Japanese occupation). That’s far worse than what American kids as a demographic are growing up with now, but that was entirely out of the hands of their parents to avoid.

I feel like for today’s teens, it’s not that bad, but it’s bad because of selfishness and greed rather than huge national or global tragedy.

Shit, you’re absolutely right but I never thought about it that way.

Jesus, we’ve let these kids down. This is all they’ve known through their adolescence…

Honest question:

Since we have a body of results-driven data to refer to in this case:

How often has Vegas correctly called election results 3 months out?

I’m not passing judgement on placing stock in betting odds (nor am I willing to give them any credit) unless I see some data that suggests they’re getting it right a vast majority of the time.

Well said.

It’s also worth remembering that literally any poll conducted is only displaying data based on people who voluntarily respond to polls.

Even when Biden was still running, the results were always going to be flawed based on the simple fact that far more Trump voters are the sort of rabid, loud people with nothing better to do than to let someone know what they think about politics, vs Biden voters who were motivated in large part by nothing more significant than “I just don’t want trump”.

The first person is going to be happy to spend 15 minutes on the phone with anyone willing to listen to their political thoughts. The second person is hanging up.

It also wouldn’t cover a meal from Uber Eats.

Definitely worse than nothing.

You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it’s power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?

Or did you mean it’s not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military…while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?

You’re absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there’s two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it’s not going to be just one, it’s not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn’t even be any struggle at all.

I’m not saying I’d fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it’s not about one armed individual, it’s more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.

No, nor should they try, nor should they stick with their current seemingly nonsensical policy ideas about guns.

I can’t decide if I’m amazed, impressed, or utterly disgusted that the “stick to their guns” play on words was right there and you didn’t go for it.

I think you’d be more wrong than you think. As they say, “If you go far enough left you get your guns back.”

Not to mention moderates of both parties who are gun owners in suburban and rural areas of many of the battleground states he so desperately needs.

Just have one officially killed.

Then signal to the rest that you’d like them to review this latest decision while you’re deciding on your nominee to fill the vacancy.

And literally hours after McConnell says it’s too close to an election to have a confirmation, have him killed too.

Then ask his replacement (Cornyn? Graham? Hawley?) to pretty please hold a confirmation vote before your special ops team has a chance to get a few hours of sleep and a hot meal and they’re ready to roll again.

You’re getting downvoted because Lemmy, but that’s more or less how I read the ruling as well. They ruled very specifically in a way that let them punt on all the other questions these trials have created.

I’d hoped for better, but not realistically.

Wouldn’t the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?

The Great Basilisk is displeased by your repeated misspelling of the word “falter”.

Prepare your simulated ass.

They call it McConnelling.

But you’re working in that scenario because you’re being paid.

If you had that job where your employer only had a say in what you deliver (ignoring the obvious pitfalls of that arrangement), and they suddenly stopped paying you, or started only paying you half…would you still be okay with it?

If not, then you’re working because you like being paid, not because you want to work.

On the flip side: if you had some sort of situation where you got paid a comfortable living that allowed you to cover all your expenses, indulge some luxury, and save…and you got this money no matter what, just for waking up…would you still work every day? Or work until your employer was satisfied with your output each day/week/pay period?

Some might…most specifically (I would think) people whose jobs provide some sort of personal fulfillment like teachers, caregivers, etc. but I think the vast majority of people would take the money and live lives that offered personal enjoyment and fulfillment, doing what they wanted to do, not what an employer (who at that point isn’t their source of pay) would like them to do.