Considering she is saying he divided the family and that Giuliani was pretty quiet before Trump, I think we should take it as a “we didn’t always agree but we were family and that came first”. Which if true is a terrifying possibility that mutant oompla loompa man is capable of splitting a family that badly. Reminds me of some civil war quotes.
I’ve talked with military members about fort and base renaming. The names are significant because they are named after (mostly generals) service members who are strongly associated with a set of tactics or strategies that the base specializes in.
So instead of fort Green beret you’d have fort “founding father of Green beret” or fort “I trailblazed the green beret playbook”
I still think we need to rename the Confederate name ones because fuck the traitors, but adhering to that naming scheme is important for the armed services.
Only 18 years? Should be the death penalty for Nazism.
Set up a redirect for all Texas IP addresses. Point to Fuck Texas.
What a rare W
The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by Israel.
This is actually really good and a point I’ve tried to make to lukewarm success. The Israelis are not always in favor of the actions of their government much like we Americans aren’t. Making this distinction is important so that we remember who we’re actually angry at and who we demand action from regarding the clear genocide of the Palestinians.
Context: I’m an American Jew who is furious with Bibi’s actions and the IDF.
It’s in the backlog, I have some manga I’m reading and a bookclub book first
If they can solve global warming, I’m fine being a pet. Just gimme my videogames and I’ll tend to some crops.
Gonna be a nope from me
Not yet
… how is this a new theory? The movie evolution made this a central point of the story
How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can’t run.
Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we’re brainstorming ideas to avoid.
I don’t think age needs to be the limiting factor. I’ve met plenty of 70+ year olds who are mentally capable of performing any job. My grandfather is in his 80’s and he’s a kick ass doctor.
I strongly feel that it needs to be test and check up based. Something impartial treated with an air of dignity so that people are raised respecting that it’s perfectly alright to not pass it. That should help avoid stigma while ensuring people like that judge are a non-issue if not nearly a non-issue.
Cute. “Oh I didn’t say you said that! I just heavily implied it but I didn’t actually do it tehe”
Act less like a Republican.
I’ve explained elsewhere but I’m no fan of today’s system. The only part I didn’t understand is what brings anyone back to the courtroom.
Turns out that a judge under this proposed system can say if a person is a flight risk or not and take steps to handle it. That’s honestly all I needed to know but now I still have to deal with assholes like you who assume I’m a boot licker FOR ASKING A CLARIFYING FuCKING QUESTION
Jfc go back to reddit with your bullshit. I’m here for discussion conversation and understanding, not accusations assholes and brain rot.
Didn’t expect a specials reference, but I ain’t mad
Given it provably puts a higher punishment on poor people based on percentage of income than rich people, I fully agree with you.
The part I didn’t know (and hadn’t had a moment to read in the article) was that in situations where required (run risk, threat to themselves and others, etc) a judge could still time that they need to be held in jail/holding/whatever.
I love that the people field is getting leveled here, make no mistake. I just needed to understand were we saying “by default except where required no bail or holding” or “no bail yolo enjoy the chaos”
Yeah, I’m super in favor of the idea, I just worry about repercussions or a lack thereof.
Yeah you’ve definitely hit on what I was thinking. I’m fully in support of a well thought idea being tested, I just worried about if there was a lack of a punishment for not showing up.
You’re welcome to not put words in my mouth.
My goal was to understand how the law works, you’ve done nothing to help with that. Maybe consider that someone has an earnest goal before accusing them of shit, then accuse them when they’ve given you sufficient evidence.
I thought it was Britain directly, not Canada, that torched it