Euphorazine

joined 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

People listen to other people's opinions. You don't care about joe rogans opinion, so his endorsement means nothing. Other people do listen to him and will take his endorsement into consideration. "I agree with what Rogan says alot, he's probably more well informed than me, so if he says someone is worth the vote, well then I don't have to think about it myself and can trust him"

It's newsworthy when a public figure throws their endorsement around, you just don't care about the news

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The significance is that he doesn't control how his pension is funded. It's not like he has a vested interest in one company succeeding by having a bunch of stock there, and he's been in politics since the aughts. It's refreshing when compared to other congressmen

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

My guess is no one is willing to take on the liability. Any new system that introduces bugs or introduces attack vectors from hackers don't want to be responsible for any lost money and I'm sure banks/insurance don't want to take on the risk either.

Magnetic tape and clearing houses for the indefinite future!

[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The mast majority of legal precedings end with a plea deal.

"Plea guilty to this misdemeanor with a fine and walk out of jail today, or wait in jail for 3 months and fight an uphill court case where people will blindly trust the police and we can fabricate any narrative we want"

"Oh you want to fight and post bail? Okay well for three months we require biweekly drug screenings you pay for, you have a curfew, and if the police can come up with some other bs charge while you're out, we get to tack on bail jumping"

It's not hard to see why people will admit to being guilty while innocent when pleading guilty won't result in jail time

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I write left handed, I do everything else right handed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wasn't even thinking about a can opener, I was thinking about a beverage with the tab to open xD

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Posts a meme unrelated to the community

Posts get removed

Surprised Pikachu face

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I remember I bought a Moto X back in like 2014 and spent the extra money to get a bamboo back, was shopping for a case and was like "why did I spend money on a wood finish just to cover it with a case?"

I haven't used a phone case since 2014. To be fair, I did eventually replace my moto x because I dropped it and broke the front glass, but I haven't had a cracked screen since.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Now I may be wrong, but the rulings on sodomy or marital rape weren't rulings that overturned past supreme Court rulings. And a future supreme Court shouldn't be able to overturn citizens united. Congress would need to pass a law to overturn citizens united.

It's like roe v wade. I'm pretty sure the roe ruling wasn't specifically about abortion, it was about the people's right to get an abortion because they have a right to privacy versus the government's interest.

How can one supreme Court roster determine roe was a violation of the 14th amendment and another roster rule it wasn't? That just incentives a political supreme Court. Roe shouldn't have been overturned, Congress should have had the burden of modifying the 14th amendment so that roe could be struck down.

I bet the justices are communicating with interested parties to let them know which rulings they now have the majority to overturn. Like a "hey bud, you should challenge the Chevron ruling now that we have a majority, and when it gets here, we'll get rid of that one too"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I dunno, the SCOTUS has been overturning decades old rulings out of nowhere lately.

How new SCOTUS can reverse old SCOTUS seems like an odd power for them to have.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago

Not voting does not tell the system their authority is meaningless. Not voting is just not voting.

For over half Americans, voting for president is pointless, voting blue in a red state or red in a blue state doesn't do anything in the winner take all states. But, voting for president means you're also there to vote local, which by far more important and impactful on your day to day life

Who the president is is largely inconsequential to your day to day life. The legislature is where you need to focus.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

He didn't drop bombs in America though, so it wasn't in American politics /s

view more: ‹ prev next ›