some r/adhdmemes material

Read more than the headline and you’ll have less questions.

Literally the first paragraph in the article answers your question.

I’m sure this thread will be full of rational discussion.

It’s a camera, like the millions of cameras that are around us every day.

If you’re a creep then it’s a camera for creeps. If you’re not, then there are plenty of legitimate uses providing that all video is kept locally and not uploaded to Meta/Amazon/Google’s servers.

So, like every other aspect of life in the US then

Lol

I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡

I’m talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you’re crafting your bad faith arguments.

Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they’re all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person’s phone was at a specific location.

Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing?

Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument?

Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you’re implying.

The President doing illegal things has no bearing on the admissibility of evidence.

The judge decides what is allowed to be used at trial. If the prosecution ignore the judge and presents it anyway then the judge rules the case a mistrial. If the judge allows it then the court of appeal would overturn the ruling.

This doesn’t stop them from illegally obtaining the evidence, but it provides the ruling that prevents it from being used at trial.

If they didn’t get a warrant then this ruling means that every court must require that the evidence be suppressed.

No, they can’t obtain the data without a warrant.

That broadly covers every way that information could come to them.

It’s like how the police can’t search your apartment without a warrant even if the landlord voluntarily makes them a copy of the key.

You keep saying ‘I think’ but demonstrating that you do not.

You linked them because your reading comprehension is worse than your impulse control and thought you could score some quick social media high fives from the other Internet mouthbreathers.

Here’s a Wikipedia article, maybe it’ll help you understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_seeking

The worst kind, right after all of the rest of them (and the Dutch Nazis, with their bike paths and tiki torches).

There’s hope.

If he can’t keep the endless war going, he may face some kind of justice. I’m sure he has a private bunker where he can reflect upon that fact.

Zionists are ambitious, trying to genocide so hard that people forget about the Nazis.

Netanyahu doesn’t really have the punchiness of “Hitler”, so they need to work on that part. His gun probably tastes the same, so there’s that.

I also do not think you know what a “rhetorical question” is.

Well, let me demonstrate:

You know what I think better than I do?

You know, the image in the OP is not an aspirational goal, right?

Yes, I know what Nazis are.

It was a rhetorical question, not a ChatGPT prompt for information.

Is that your alt? If not then you have no idea what they meant.

There are many people on social media who’s kneejerk reaction is to label things “nazi” (see the OP’s image), or to imply that someone is doing favors for nazis, when they perceive that they’re being disagreed with. It’s kind of the topic of this whole post.

My response is a rhetorical question, not a request for information and their reply would show if they are that kind of reactionary person.

I didn’t reply to you and I didn’t mistake the reply box for a search engine, so linking me Wikipedia pages and suggesting that I’m doing favors for nazis means that you both missed the point and are the kind of reactionary outrage junkie that’s depicted in the OP.