Is he in IT? Just noticing the cat 9 tails he’s got there.

Only it’s not an accident.

At this point, I’m not sure if he’d lose even 1% in the polls if a recording came out showing him with Epstein, explicitly stating he’ll take the 12 year old girl, then dropping his pants. Most of his supporters would claim it was fake, some would claim it was out of context because they didn’t release any footage of actual sex, and at least a few would argue that there’s nothing wrong with sex with 12 year olds.

deleted by creator

I think the most reasonable interpretation is that the law doesn’t currently recognize the undead as being people, let alone being the same person they were in life. It would need to be shown to be a reliable source of evidence, similar to any new technology that claims to offer insight into a case. A random judge might allow it, but it would be easy grounds for an appeal if it can’t be shown to do exactly what it claims to do.

DNA evidence was new once, but so was the polygraph. Only one of these is admissible, and for good reason.

4x games tend to be functionally infinitely repayable, since a single game often takes an eternity and there are usually many factions to play.

I particularly like sword of the stars 1 & 2. Honestly don’t remember which I preferred but I know I got an insane amount of time sunk into both of them.

France on Sunday took a step closer to delivering what was once seen as an unthinkable nightmare: a far-right government taking power in Paris for the first time.

Well… the first time in a while. And just as the last time was exiting living memory.

It now has a bonus against evil outsiders and undead.

They want to oppose Trump, but also know that endorsing a Democrat would hurt their future careers in politics.

And honestly, they might actually have more of an impact this way since other Republicans will be more open to the idea that it’s OK to simply not support Trump. Many of those same voters would probably dismiss them as traitors if they actually said they were voting for Biden.

Wait, I remember this one…

I’m talking about this in terms of jurisprudence. Judges are supposed to rule based on law and precedent, not just on their personal preferences and political views. It’s an essential element of the rule of law. There’s very little point in having a constitution or laws if judges just ignore them and do whatever they want. I mean, I think most people here would agree that they do not approve of this Court defying precedent and most reasonable interpretations of the law in order to impose their will on the country.

Obviously, the Court can, has, and sometimes should overturn precedent, and potentially throw out decades or centuries of previously settled law. But generally speaking, that ruling should make a very compelling case for such an action. They would essentially be saying that everyone writing and interpreting the laws for all that time had gotten it wrong (intentionally or otherwise), including potentially the people who wrote the very sections of the constitution that the ruling is based on.

The more specific point I was making was that Roberts had ruled that the government could use the tax power alone to tax “not having insurance” and that it wouldn’t run afoul of the constitution as long as it wasn’t just a head tax applied to everyone indiscriminately, as that would be a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states.* That’s the same clause that is being invoked in this case as a reason why wealth taxes shouldn’t be allowed.

A ruling against taxes on unrealized gains would not only require the Court to assert that we’ve been doing it wrong this whole time and that we only just now figured that out, but Roberts in particular would be doing a complete 180 on the issue. Jumping from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other would be a rather remarkable change, one that would be hard to reconcile without concluding that one decision or the other was dishonest and politically motivated.

* And because it had a regulatory intent, aimed at compelling people to buy insurance, it had to also not be so crippling a burden that it’s effects would need to go through police or regulatory powers.

A ruling against wealth taxes would be insane and would essentially overturn our entire history of tax law. But it would be especially nuts in light of the ruling in NFIB v Sebelius that the government can hit you with a tax for doing nothing. That seems utterly incompatible with the idea that the government doesn’t have the power to tax owning things and/or amassing wealth.

I guess that would mean you can tax not buying something, but you can’t tax not selling something.

I wonder if he also wants the absolute immunity that Trump claims to have to this day to also apply to Biden?

Trump can do no wrong. Therefore, any action taken against him must be unjustified. So it can only ever be political, and therefore, it’s only fair that we do the same to Biden.

The best part is, they recognize that this is terrible for democracy, that this being normalized would be a disaster, and then say they are going to do it anyway. They are admitting that rather than accept the outcome of the legal process for settling these kinds of situations, and respecting the rule of law, they would rather damage our society to get their victory by any means necessary.

Which is pretty much how we got here in the first place, when Trump couldn’t accept an election or dozens of court cases all telling him he lost.

The really frustrating part is that cheap generic stuff skyrocketed too. Walmart embraced inflation enthusiastically, and their knockoff mountain dew went from $0.62 to $1.70. Supply chain issues I’m sure…

I used to get that stuff 10 bottles at a time, and it was one of the few things that made it worth going there. Now I just get whatever is on sale at the local employee owned grocery chain. The price difference is negligible, almost everything else is cheaper, and I get to support some place that isn’t evil.

Normally the ones who buy a console at the end of its lifespan are the ones getting the best deal. You have the entire library of games to choose from, and can get all the best games at once. Plus the system will have dropped in price multiple times since it came out, and the older games will cost a fraction of what they did originally. And of course, they’ll have long since addressed any design problems that early models were plagued with.

At least, that’s how it’s supposed to go.

If every halfway respectable news outlet sounded the alarm and made Trump’s threats to democracy and the rule of law the dominant story from now until election day, he’d still have 85% of his supporters. Some would be OK with it. Some would say he’s still better than Biden. Most would never see it because they live in a media bubble that tells them what they want to hear. And more than a few would call those stories hit pieces and climb into the bubble to be safe and comfortable.

We do need the media and everyone else to sound the alarm. And even a small shift could be enough to make the difference. But as long a large portion of the population is listening to outlets that unabashedly spew extremist propaganda, we’re going to continue have this problem.

I would assume that this agreement would only be regarding fully autonomous AI. That is, AI that are able to act independently and make the decision to strike without human intervention. I don’t see the US agreeing to give up the drones that are supposed to be flying wingman to future fighters.

Or, given the source, this article could just be intended to pressure the US to agree to restrictions, and to set the stage for being outraged if they don’t.

Hostage takers remain undecided on the best strategy to free the hostages.

They aren’t trying to avert a shutdown, they’re trying to get the most concessions possible in exchange for averting it. They are the ones causing the shutdown, everyone else is actually trying to keep the government running.

By repeatedly bringing up the issue and putting it in the court record, Mr. Kise said that he was laying the groundwork for either an appeal or a motion for a mistrial.

Spouting a stream of bullshit that you can’t actually defend in open court just to get it out there. It’s a classic strategy