So as I understand it, overarching priorities of Trump supporters are:

1. ending sex trafficking
2. stop making the poor poorer and
3. fighting election fraud

So they’re excited about a guy who:

1. By his own admission/bragging, had a 15 year long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
2. Passed the largest corporate tax cut in history, and plans to eliminate income tax which is paid at a higher rate by high income individuals, replacing it with tariffs that fall disproportionately on the poor.
3. Made numerous fraudulent claims and tried to submit a fraudulent slate of electors after the last election in an attempt to subvert the will of the voters.

Wired headphones. I like that they just plug into whatever without syncing, are cheap, light, and last basically forever. Of course I need a dongle for the vast majority of modern phones, but I a have a sturdy solid dongle and other than the annoyance of having to carry it with me (and using the word “dongle” to describe it) it works quite nicely. A wire clip is also a necessity.

This doesn’t bode well for my typewriting monkey startup

Yeah it’s that terrible, but look at the rest of the world. Putin enjoys a lot of support from the same people he’s sending to die, Modi in India wins elections by a large margin on a platform of basically “Fuck Sikhs and Muslims”. Add China and basically most of humanity lives under someone who is blatantly racist, corrupt, generally horrible, or a combination thereof. And Western Europe doesn’t have a leg to stand on either, the UK ignored dire warnings and voted for Brexit without even understanding what it is.

Humans don’t believe what’s objectively correct, they believe what they want to believe. This makes feeding people what they want to hear a very successful strategy, and one that psychopaths have an advantage in pursuing.

It works for me because I’m into a lot of the stuff discussed on Lemmy. My biggest problem with reddit was that at some point they seemed eager to smoosh all the subs together into one big Basic Betty fest. For example having r/all be a mandatory sub and having a million default subs…It kind of felt like towards the end everyone was discussing the same stuff on every sub, and it was basically the same stuff being discussed on Twitter (and many posts were just pics of tweets).

I know Lemmy kinda has some similar issues, but because the whole ecosystem is its own niche it still works for me.

That consciousness is real and not an illusion

deleted by creator

Wait what? And that sort of things is legal?

Technically no, if it can be proven that the goal is racial discrimination specifically. Every so often there’s a lawsuit claiming just that. Problem is, it tends to get resolved by the Supreme Court which is two-thirds chosen by the “let’s make it harder to vote” party.

I’m not sure if OP was intended as an ad or not, but I think we should have an informal rule that if a top post is about a product, we should all upvote the comment that has the worst fact about that product. It’s the only way to be sure.

Probably less javascript. In theory, javascript makes sites faster because it diverts processing to the user’s browser. In reality, developers use it to load all sorts of frameworks, third party whatevers, and other crap that slows things down. In other words, the same reason old websites load fast.

The catch-22 is that the 3 liberal justices dissented from the opinion. So all 9 can be presumed to vote against Biden being immune for assassinating his opponent, and eliminating justices won’t really help.

To give a serious answer: The short answer is probably, the long answer is no.

The opinion was deliberately vague on that issue. A dissent said they could under Roberts’ opinion, but Roberts calls that “fear mongering” without elaborating whether that’s true or not.

It’s also a pretty complicated opinion so bear with me. The whole thing comes down to this vague idea of official vs. unofficial acts which are supposed to be immune according to the court. Really, there’s multiple factual allegations and the court said each one has some level of immunity (and if you think these are full of contradictions, I know):

• Asking the DOJ to pressure states to investigate obvious spurious “fraud” claims and pressure states to throw out their results, and threatening to fire them if they refuse - here Trump is “absolutely immune” because the DOJ is part of the executive branch and the president has power to fire them, I guess for any reason now.
• Trying to get Mike Pence to refuse the vote count and throw the whole country into a chaotic power struggle - presumptively immune, because the president and vice president can talk about their duties. Can be rebutted if the government can prove a prosecution wouldn’t pose a danger of intrusion into executive branch functions, whatever the hell that means.
• Trump personally telling state officials to change electoral votes - here Roberts says there’s no basis for Trump to claim immunity because there’s no presidential power to try and coerce state officials. However, he then says it’s up to the lower court to consider if it’s official or not before proceeding, and is entirely unclear on who has the burden of proof here.
• Using twitter and a speech to organize and then start a riot at the capitol - similar to the above, the president has official duties relating to speaking but yada yada yada it’s sent back to the lower court to decide whether this is official or not.

Conclusion: Ordering an assassination of a rival certainly sounds most like the first - the president has several official duties relating to giving military orders, and the military is part of the executive branch. The FBI is also part of the DOJ, so if Trump can order the DOJ to do something criminal, that itself could be an assassination. But as described in the article below, one could make an argument that no, the opinion doesn’t actually say he do that with the military specifically, because congress has some powers relating to war (not convincing). However, to be fair to that opinion, this immunity ruling is such a stinker that lower and future courts will limit its holding as much as humanly possible. Plus seemingly contradictory aspects to it (Trump can order the DOJ to do things he can’t do himself?) could be used to argue for exceptions to the overall immunity. But reading the opinion at face value, yes the president could order an assassination, and even fire generals who refuse to pass along those orders.

Longer answer though: This is the real world. If Biden gave such an order, it would likely result in a coup and an overthowing of the Constitutional order as a whole. And if order were somehow restored and Biden brought up on criminal charges, you could be your life that the 6-3 Republican majority on the court would find a way to either limit or perhaps overturn their prior ruling as it pertains to Biden.

For an alternative perspective on the same topic, here’s a center-to-slightly-right-leaning law professor’s take on this which does a pretty plausible job sane-washing the opinion.

I’ve been in multiple relationships by now but I pretty much never dated or only very sparsely through my 20s, depending on what you’d count. A few reasons:

• When I was younger online dating was much worse than today and had even fewer women, and I feel like approaching women in real life was much harder for several reasons, especially for me given my social anxiety, nerdiness, and lack of opportunity to cross paths with women in my life.
• Financial difficulties - I was living with my parents as an adult and was focused on fixing that situation, and was embarrassed/pessimistic about dating.
• I don’t really fit in easily with the vast majority of people in terms of race, religion, activities, or attitudes about several things like money. It feels like race and religion have become less of an issue today, but I still struggle to find women I can relate to in terms of attitudes.
• Overall questionable appearance - OK physique but with bad hair and clothes.

Sidenote: One thing that annoys me is the attitude of measuring people, both men and women, by their level of relationship success. There’s very little that’s fair or rational about attraction, in fact it’s the best example area where rationality would be almost entirely futile. So don’t feel bad about it, just do what you want for yourself and ignore judgmental people.

The former presidents act seems to imply that a former president can decline Secret Service protection and even get $1 million for doing so. So I imagine he could just decline protection and hire his own security. But that would make it pretty obvious that he’s planning on fleeing.

deleted by creator

Well if you’re lucid, can’t you just like fly out of there or something?

Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities

Well that’s blatantly not the argument at all. The question isn’t whether to react, but what do you do about it?

The vast majority of fascist movements are destroyed through nonviolence rather than violence, which itself is typically inseparable from fascism. To refer to the post below, what ended Jim Crow? Was it a bunch of black people going around punching suspected Klan members? On the contrary it was the reverse. The Klan “lynching people and getting away with it” included key rallying points like the murders of Emmett Till, or the Mississippi Burning murders, along with state violence like the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Sure, maybe the fascists themselves got away with it, but fascism didn’t. The things the Klan and other segregationists fought for were dismantled, in large part thanks to their own violent efforts.

Nazis don’t need a justification for their violence, but their enablers - Von Papen, or the would-be modern equivalent Mike Pence - do. And these enablers need to tell themselves, their family, and their neighbors, that they have good reasons for their decisions. Exposing fascism as the senseless violence it is robs them of that justification, while giving the fascists a threat to refer to provides it.

I’m just gonna focus entirely on the common misunderstanding of the use of violence against Nazis in WWII because that’s such a common argument for punching nazis and it’s really quite wrong on so many levels.

“But Nazis were stopped by violence in WWII.” That’s a meaningless statement without the missing last word. Violence stopped Nazis militarily, after they had already seized power in Germany and were invading other countries. Today we’re not in a military battle with Nazis, we’re in an ideological battle.

So why did the Nazis seize power in Germany? Because they weren’t punched enough? Well the exact mechanism behind how the nazis seized power is a complex web of illegal political maneuvers, political violence, and yes, some degree of ideological success by the nazis. But a key part of that ideological success was the fear of political violence by their opponents - most notably the Reichstag fire - to justify the power that they were illegally taking. It was basically “desperate times require desperate measures”. So in the ideological battle, the perceived* use of violence by Nazi opponents was actually a key part of their victory within Germany.

Meanwhile, over in the US, the contrast between the violence employed by the German American Bund (the US version of the Nazi party) and largely Jewish peaceful protesters ended up being a massive embarrassment to the Bund from which they never recovered. Again, ideologically, non-violence proved quite effective.

Point being, and this should be obvious - violence is a really bad option for succeeding in an ideological battle. Yes, in a military battle, it’s the only rational option. But in an ideological battle, it’s actually counterproductive.

*Obligatory caveat that whether the Reichstag fire was actually set by nazi opponents remains debated, but suffice to say the political atmosphere at the time made it plausible.

That obviously has more to do with Trump and the GOP than Kamala. It was inevitable when they kicked his daughter (once a right-winger herself) out of the party.

You have to remember that the voters are human beings, complete with areas of ignorance, prejudices, and logical fallibility. Trump certainly is aware of that and exploits it to the maximum extent.