100%

If there are enough prisoners that they would create a large enough voting bloc that they could get someone elected, then that means there is something fucked up with the legal system. If there aren’t that many, then what’s the big deal allowing them to vote?

Sure, absolutely. Which is part of the reason I think it’s bad to give the justice department this kind of power.

Because let’s be honest, this is 100% a case of community self defense.

That’s not how self defense laws work, for good reason. Self defense requires imminent threats, and we’ve established this for centuries as the way it should be.

Absolutely the people should be able to elect a felon. This is how the law should absolutely work. Imagine how bad it would be if they could just remove political rivals by getting the justice department to catch them in some bs felony, or even frame them for something. The real travesty is that we allow the state to remove the right to vote for a felony conviction.

Your link is Clinton saying she won’t say before the primary is over whether she would support Sanders. It’s not even her saying she wouldn’t do it, let alone all liberals saying it.

The amount of disinformation spread here is amazing.

Regular doors with handles don’t fail open, there is just an Intuitive and common way to manually open them, which seems like the short coming here.

You really can’t think of anything more obviously a case of treason than what you believe trump has done?

The guy is loyal only to himself, no doubt. But, I don’t even see how it would fit this definition at all, and I can easily come up with many things more obviously a violation. Also keep in mind that Russia is not an enemy; we are not at war with them. They are an adversary.

I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?

The definition of treason is very clear and very narrowly defined in the COTUS, and this does not meet the definition.

I’m not as doomer as everyone else for the short term. It’s the long term I’m worried about. He might get 2 more scotus members, and he’s going to do everything in his power to undercut any attempt to tackle climate change. And that includes his scotus picks who will almost certainly declare any needed attention to address climate change as unconstitutional.

This is a terrible apology. You make it all about then instead of your actions and then don’t even say you won’t do it, but only that you’ll try to do it…and then immediately dropping the f bomb throwing out the window any chance that you’re “trying” means anything.

I read this and was like “10 bucks says it’s just alphabetical” and, lo and behold, it’s just alphabetical. How is that not the obvious answer?

They haven’t even started counting yet.

You need to take a fucking chill pill, my man.

I find working with AI to help me understand way better.

Using Linux as an example. If I search for “give me the size of each subdirectory in the current directory” the stack overflow answer will be “just type du -h --max-depth=1” so you copy and paste it and, voila!, it’s exactly what you want. Except I have no idea what any of it means.

However, I ask chatgpt, and it will explain that du means disk usage, -h gives a human readable form, and --max-depth=1 will only go down 1 level, without showing all of the subdirectories.

So now I’ve learned something.

Additionally, with coding, it’s a lot like rubber duck debugging for me. Just formulating my question will often lead to an answer, or trying to explain what went wrong with the AI solution helps me get to the proper answer.

And doesn’t insult you, and gives you an answer far more tailored to your issue.

https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/23/sit_or_stand_how_should_men_pee_108761.html

It only sounds like a contradiction if you take “pro-life” literally. In fact, I find this hard to understand at all if you simply just listen to pro-lifers.

Let me be clear, I’m about as firm a supporter of a woman’s right to choose as they come. I’m also adamantly against the death penalty. Do you find this position to be contradictory?

However, the general position of “pro lifers” does not contradict this at all, pretty obviously. They think that a fetus is a child that hasn’t been born yet, and because it hasn’t been born, it’s completely innocent. So you have no right to take it’s life. However, if some person in life has done something in life that removes that innocence, they believe sometimes that rises to such a heinous level that they must be permanently and irrevocably removed from society.

There are other glaring contradictions in their position, like not wanting to provide support to that innocent baby once it has come into the world, but this is clearly not one of them.

I think this has long since debunked and it’s actually the other way. At the very least it’s inconclusive.

The idea of it being girlie to sit down and pee far predates the “domestication” of boys. Additionally, the idea that “if you are a man you have to sit down to pee” is what is attempting to force some kind of social conformity. . . “pee how you like, it has nothing to do with how manly you are” is exactly the opposite.

“doing real labor” “easy, sweatless, office job” “the actual wheel turners”

“I dislike the condescending attitude”

It never ceases to amaze me how often people see and hate shit in other people that they epitomize themselves.

And honestly, my experience has been the opposite and I see the condescending attitude, at least more openly, coming from blue collar workers more often.

Whether you’re trolling or if this is real, you need help.

Since for me I actually am a kemonomimi.

No, you’re not. That’s the whole point.