Why wear a thong for your workout? … Err, what kind of training are you up to, anyway? :-o

Remember, this is actually a question of what to do about a coup d’etat. Undercutting basic democracy is not a question of law, but a question of who will use force how much force to address it.

Normal people don’t care about “the economy”. To hell with the yachts. We care about working conditions and pay/benefits vs. cost of living.

If I were him, I’d make quiet preparations. Probably he has, because he’s had four years to do so. We know military leaders have discussed the issue, right? Which means POTUS has, too. But what actions taken, that we don’t know.

Yes.

As others mentioned, it’s been blocked. The judge up in Missouri continued the block.

The reasoning is the same as before, and none of it makes sense. It’s so bizarre that the courts are allowed to prioritize lenders over ordinary citizens. It’s not like the lenders are going to go bankrupt, so why should the injunction go in their favor? Meh. We know why. Politics.

I would rather have a person who I disagree with be honest about their views and goals, because at least then maybe we could talk about things openly, even if we couldn’t come to an agreement.

It’s so annoying dealing with chronic liars, because they keep bringing in falsehoods whenever it’s convenient, whenever they think they can get an edge.

If she actually serves 9 years, that’s a massive sentence. If she lives to 77 and gets out, what in the heck will she do with the rest of her life? Getting out of prison after any long sentence is difficult, but I can’t even imagine how one would try to rebuild their life at that age after that many years behind bars.

I don’t think Tim Walz was chosen to attract left-wing voters. He’s not center left or far left.

I agree with you that the Democrats tend to ignore the left, and it’s incredible annoying, but at the same time in my opinion Harris is a better candidate than Hillary was. It’s a small improvement, but it’s an improvement. (Obviously this depends on your views on various issues, so you could disagree reasonably enough.)

States have their own murder statutes. Federal law would be irrelevant.

If it’s an official act, yes. It’s not hard to tell a story where it becomes an official act. I I think he could still be impeached FWIW.

Because of Trump’s unhinged tactics, we know that top military leaders and (presumably) TLA bigwigs have discussed what they would do in situations like this. What you’re describing is very close to a coup d’etat, and in a situation where they get ordered to perform such an action, do they do it? What was framed as a question of SCOTUS rulings becomes, in reality, the question, “Am I willing to throw this entire democracy away on this President’s absurd orders?” Every high-up in government knows this… They signed up to serve the people, not a dictator.

Of course we have no idea how each person would act, but my point is that pure legality is only one challenge Biden would have to overcome if he wanted to do such a (horrible) thing.

Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.

But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.

Your second question has a general answer. Most languages use tones, which means tones change in the course of a sentence. If the tone changes for all sentences, then it also changes for questions. I know that’s not what you were trying to ask, but that’s the answer to the question you did ask.

If you need a way to indicate that something is a question, you could do what English does… You could use question words at the beginning of the sentence. You could change word order. You could add extra words… Which is to say, you’re not dependent on intonation, though you could use it if you want to.

What if we change your question. What if we ask about asylum seekers? Does that make it any clearer?

If you spend about 20 minutes online, you will find out that many people are fleeing their home countries because they don’t want to be killed, forced into slave-like conditions, or forced into occupations such as prostitution. Or they want to prevent that from happening to their children.

If you were to ask people in situations like this what country they’d like to go to, in the abstract, they might not say the United States. But their options are limited. So, what country are you suggesting as an alternative? If someone is starting in El Salvador, to pick a random country in Central America, where do you think they should go?

I think other people covered the main points, but when I haven’t seen mentioned yet here is the fact that, for the news to catch your attention, it has to be something exceptional. That shouldn’t be true, but many publishers believe it. They compete to have what’s new or different or exciting.

I blame this mostly on the big media companies, and also partly on consumers who believe that consuming news is a passive activity when in reality it’s an active choice. They could go find online websites and create their own RSS feed, for example, and then they wouldn’t be stuck listening to drivel. But it does take some work and some awareness.

For example, and I don’t want to go into details about specific political parties, think about all of the polls about the election. Those are mostly meaningless. We’ll find out exactly what public opinion is on Election Day. It’s not that you couldn’t have a poll, but if you’re posting new polling data every day it’s because you’re desperate to cover up for the fact that you don’t have anything new to say.

Lol they’ll charge customers more if they get regulated. But that means they think customers would pay it, which means they think customers could be paying it now but aren’t, which means they aren’t generating as much revenue now for their shareholders as possible, which makes them a Bad Corporation.

Well yeah. They’re selling snake oil, and they better get as much money as they can now. That cash is going to dry up in a couple of years, and then where will they be. They’ll have to do real work again.

This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it’s just that district attorneys didn’t want to piss off large businesses.

If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you’ve actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that’s not true, they haven’t actually sold you something. They’ve rented you something, and they know it, and that’s a deceptive business practice.

Which is to say, I’m happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I’m not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.

He already got suspended. His weapon was suspended there, on this outside of the MRI machine.

The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.