Not likely. The problem is that you can only appeal to them in person. Any appeal made through the internet or the media will miss them completely. They self isolate in the media by only watching networks that confirm their bias against literally any climate activism and online there are algorithms that do it for them. When you do appeal to them in person, they attack you as a Soros-serving, leftist, liberal and declare that everything you tell them is fake news. They won’t believe it until it affects them personally and even then they’ll try to blame liberals for it while continuing to refuse to take positive action.

Bring it! I once wrote a basic program off of the random dungeon generator tables in the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons - Dungeon Masters Guide using Atari BASIC.

I have crossed a road at a run to beat an approaching car before, and had I been struck it definitely would’ve been my fault for not practicing proper safety.

I’m with you on this, however, the speed of the cop is an issue. At three times the speed limit, an approaching car would reach you much faster than you would expect it too. This girl may have glanced, seen the cop in the distance, and never realized how fast he was going. Frankly, if an emergency responder if taking an action this far outside the norm, they should also be taking great care because innocent bystanders cannot be expected to anticipate the responders actions.

Damn straight. If you go to Wisconsin and try to pass off any of that Kraft, individually-wrapped, processed cheese product as actual cheese, you may just get your ass kicked. It’d be like trying to pass off the piss they drink in Wisconsin as beer to a German.

I don’t think she was playing alone in the yard. The uncle was there and told her to go inside and she ignored him. As for coyotes, with a rottie and springer in the yard, no coyote would be an issue.

However, if you tell the kid to go inside by their mom, tell the mom that you did so. Uncle was a dumb shit. You can’t count on a three year old to do as they’re told.

You missed where it says they were recording and singing too. If you pay to go see a musical, your don’t want some no-talent bint in the seat behind you screeching along with the songs. In addition, you don’t want an ignoramus in front of you holding up their phone to record it for their social media page. Plus, they were warned multiple times and kept it up.

So how did this go down anyway? First, I heard that Musk deactivated his already active satellites in the region and thus disrupted the attack. This article suggests that the satellites were not active in the region and Musk simply refused to activate them.

Which is true because those are very different scenarios. In one, he used his authority to disrupt one government’s actions against another, thereby taking sides in the conflict. In the other, he refused to take an action that would help one side against the other, thereby refusing to take sides.

Knowing what I know of Musk, I’m currently assuming he is a Russian asset and helped them, but I’d like to know for sure.

As a publicly held company, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders. Fox News, as its name suggests, sells itself to share holders as a news organization. When they repeatedly present easily fact checked conspiracy theories as news, they open themselves up to lawsuits that damage the value of the organization and therefor cost the shareholders money.

Fox News is being sued for violating their fiduciary duty to their shareholders by failing to do basic due diligence in making sure that their reporting is honest and accurate, something every other major news organization does. News organizations do this because failing to due so can lead to lawsuits that can cost millions of dollars. Fox allowed and even encouraged, I believe, on air personalities to repeatedly make false claims about Dominion Voting Systems. That action led to Fox being sued for $2.7 billion. Fox recently settled that suit for $787.5 million. That is a huge hit to their shareholders. Fox also promoted the same falsehoods against another company, Smartmatic. Smartmatic is also suing Fox for $2.7 billion dollars and their is little reason to think that suit will end any better for Fox News than the Dominion suit did.

Nonsense. It’s a job like any other. Stop projecting your morality on everyone else. She didn’t do anything wrong at all. She didn’t hurt anyone. You have no right to judge her.

Same. Under the bail system, the judge can essentially say that the “accused” is a threat to society or a flight risk… but they have money so I’m gonna let them run free until trial. If they’re poor though, fuck 'em.

Cops are well aware standing in front of a car gives them a free pass killing someone who attempts to escape.

Not to mention, standing in front of a car driven by a POC who has every reason to expect the cops to shoot them anyway. That person is already frightened and likely panicked and not thinking clearly. Putting yourself in front of a car with a panicked driver who is justifiably in fear for their life is incredibly stupid.

Also, what is with cops just repeating the same command over and over again and refusing to otherwise interact with the person. Are they trying to make the situation worse? Why not try and de-escalate the situation. Oh, that’s right, they want a reason to shoot people.

I can’t say for certain that all right-wingers are integrity challenged, but it sure seems that way. It’s almost like you wouldn’t be right-wing if you weren’t already lacking in integrity. Then again, maybe it’s the other way. Maybe people have to sacrifice their integrity in order to support right-wing positions.

Ah, an insanity defense. Bold move.

There’s more than one reason that Biden changed secret service agents when he took office.

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,” Alito told the Journal.

This dumb shit really should read the Constitution.

Art III.S2.C2.6 Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress absolutely has, per the Constitution, clear authority to regulate the SCOTUS. How’s this for an exception. The Supreme Court shall have no Jurisdiction in any case where any member of the court has a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse themselves?

The vast majority of felonies should not be a bar to holding public office. What if you had a felony conviction for possession of weed? Should that bar you from holding office or should you be allowed to run for office to try and change an unjust law?

The only crimes that should bar one from office are the ones that already do under the 14th Amendment, under which Trump should already be ineligible. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and then participated in a conspiracy to violently overthrow it.

I wonder if Congress can withhold SCOTUS operational funding until something is done?

They could do a hell of a lot more than that. The Constitution defines the SCOTUS and states:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress has the power to modify the powers of the Supreme court. They could, if they had the will, take away the vast majority of the power of SCOTUS. Congress could add exceptions to the SCOTUS’ appellate powers for all matters except matters “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” With the President’s assistance, Congress could even expand the court and alter the current majority.

They could do all this, but they won’t, and for the same reason they won’t impeach the blatantly ethically bereft members of the court. Because the Republicans are benefiting from the status quo and they will never allow the Democrats to change it as long as they have more than 40 seats in the Senate and a majority in the House.

No one is above the law.

Sadly, the evidence appears to suggest otherwise. Until the Democrats and Republicans in Congress get together and pass laws to enforce ethics rules on the SCOTUS, as they have with all other federal courts, then the members of SCOTUS are indeed above the law.

Yep, give him enough rope and he’ll hang himself. He won’t be able to stop himself.

Because they don’t want to see it. They want to feel superior to everyone else by claiming the moral high ground but don’t actually want to adhere to the morality they pretend to believe in. Feed the poor? Not with my tax dollars! Love thy neighbor? No way! One side is Muslims and the others are black! The meek shall inherit the Earth? Not on my watch!