Perhaps they don't like the fact that someone is equating pet struggles to human struggles.
Doesn't sound like they are talking about them being a burden, just how their life has changed and how they can't do all the things that those without kids do.
> their life has changed and how they can't do all the things that those without kids do.
This is true of people with pets, too.
Everyone's struggles are equally their struggles. I too get a little miffed when someone invokes the struggle Olympics, especially when their struggles are the consequence of their choices.
Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and politicians are supposed to have foresight and be prudent.
You look at prior events and see them as justified due to the people involved and situations.
If the US government can, for example investigate Richard Spencer or some other extremist figure based on a web post, then they can do the same for someone else on the other end of the spectrum.
But even more terrifying is that they can do the same for someone not in the extremes.
When my friends on the left held power and used it to quash the speech of my friends on the right, I spoke up.
When my friends on the right are doing the same, I also speak up.
The sad irony is that those not in power protest only when it is not their side.
> If the US government can, for example investigate Richard Spencer or some other extremist figure based on a web post, then they can do the same for someone else on the other end of the spectrum.
> But even more terrifying is that they can do the same for someone not in the extremes.
This isn't a valid principle. It suggests that we should oppose laws against murder, because if the government can imprison a murderer, it can imprison someone who saved a life. Even more terrifying is that it can imprison someone who saved a dog's life or didn't save or kill any lives.
Most people are in a bubble and are unaware of what their tribe is doing.
I may be wrong but I think there have been Republicans who have resigned for extra-marital sex.
While we are screaming about the current POTS and his relation with Jeffery, we gave Bill Clinton a platform to speak during the 2024 Convention. When I bring that up, I get told "It's important that we beat Trump."
The Epstein was arrested in 2019, the files have been in the hands of both Democrats and Republicans. Neither group really looks like they want to prosecute anyone further; only use accusations that their opponents are in there to galvanize their base.
I did not realize that we invited "nobodies" to speak at the convention; I can tell how shunned he was based on the Wikipedia page:
>Third night (Wednesday, August 21: A Fight for Our Freedoms)
>The third night was emceed by actress Mindy Kaling, featuring performances by Stevie Wonder, John Legend, Sheila E and Maren Morris. Vice presidential nominee Minnesota Governor Tim Walz delivered his acceptance speech. Pete Buttigieg also spoke.
>It was confirmed that Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to speak. The evening was headlined by Walz and Clinton.
Headline - verb - to be engaged as a leading performer in (as in show or performance)
>Clinton left office in 2001 with the joint-highest approval rating of any U.S. president.
-Also Wikipedia
Yes, at this moment the current POTUS is more relevant. At the time however, both Trump and Clinton were both "Some nobody with secret service protection" with the only difference between them being one was running for his second term and the other was not.
>Democrats seem to want the files about him to be released.
Everyone wants the files released and those responsible prosecuted...until they are the ones with the files. Then there are all sorts of hints and allegations that their opposition is featured heavily but no charges brought.
It's really sick, there are real people with lives who have been ruined. Committed suicide because of what happened to them and yet all those with the power to act just talk, be it democrats or republicans.
while former US President is about as far from a nobody as it is humanly possible the commenter’s points are all valid. while the current President is most definitely one of the most dispicable human beings than ever roam this planet the whole epstein business is far above any US politics. and Americans generally do not give a hoot about this (see election in 2025) - especially when victims are women and children.
> Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and politicians are supposed to have foresight and be prudent.
Except this is both impossible and a bad idea, which is why we have judges, juries, elections, and every other part of the system intended to constrain the blind application of the law.
You have said very little that addresses anything I said, except to appeal to some vague sense of "both sidesism" which is so far away from our current predicament that the only applications I see are (1) to say "I told you so", which isn't productive and widely misses the mark with me (2) normalize the current situation and/or absolve blame by shifting it onto the other side.
Investigative agencies are going to be able to investigate people. So supposing that the "US government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based on a web post" isn't a compelling argument unless your goal is to completely reject the concept of government. This can certainly be a consistent position (I've held it in the past), but it's not a common one.
At which point it comes down to accountability for how delegated powers are used - both in individual cases, and to stop patterns of abuse. For example I've long argued we need to neuter the concept of sovereign immunity, and start routinely compensating people who are harmed by the government but never convicted of breaking the law - one should indeed be able to "beat the ride". So I'm not waking up to this in 2025 clutching my pearls gasping "I can't believe the government can just do this". I've been following how the government operates unaccountably for quite some time, and I'm pointing out that the current regime is still a marked escalation.
This isn't to say I am pushing lame answers like "just vote Democrat" (I don't consider myself a Democrat). And I do agree that meaningful reform needs to be in general terms (eg aforementioned sovereign immunity example). But I also think that dismissing our current situation as some mere extension of what has been happening for a while is a terrible way of framing things.
I am saying "No. Full stop." to the idea that we ever had a time when the government was attempting to carry out their roles in good faith.
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" - Óscar Benavides, former president of Peru.
This can only be true if the law is broad and relies on "good faith". This is why laws and court ruling are often narrowly tailored, to prevent a precedent being set that will open the door for future abuse down the road.
>Investigative agencies are going to be able to investigate people. So supposing that the "US government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based on a web post" isn't a compelling argument unless your goal is to completely reject the concept of government. As has been often said, you can get a grand jury to indite a ham sandwich.
I suppose I could have fleshed out this argument a little further, a distillation of my point would be that "investigations" are carried out with little or flimsy evidence as a pretext to go on fishing expeditions to find something, anything to actually charge the person with.
>we need to neuter the concept of sovereign immunity
I wish we could get the government to hold themselves accountable, however they would need to pass a law to override the concept and they do not seem to be in any hurry to do so.
I am not attempting to say I told you so to you, nor normalize the situation. I disagree with your assessment that there ever was a "better time" and invite not only you but everyone to stand against bad laws and practices no matter the letter after the name.
> I am saying "No. Full stop." to the idea that we ever had a time when the government was attempting to carry out their roles in good faith.
This is such a strong claim, I don't know how it could even be supported.
At the agency level (the context of my original comment), this is effectively an assertion that the FDA has never meaningfully cared about food safety, NPS has always had some hidden motive for hosting visitors in parks, and so on. I'm nowhere near the best person to wax eloquently about the value of government, and I'm probably coming from a much closer position to you of being skeptical, but I think we have to admit there is some value here.
At the level of individual government agents, it's even less supportable. For example, most ICE agents are not boxing in vehicles to create an excuse to execute their drivers who had been protesting. Most ICE agents are just trying to perform their stated purpose of enforcing immigration law. This is NOT a defense of the agency, their leadership, the part of their stated goal that I have to begrudgingly admit is lawful, the tendency for agents to close ranks and defend the worst agents, the totalitarian propaganda holding it all together, etc. Rather it's an acknowledgement of the actual reality. (that we have to work with if we're going to attempt to reform it, and I use the term "reform" loosely here. I think the moderate option at this point is "abolish ICE")
The point is that in all of these situations, there is authority being delegated to individual humans, who are then supposed to faithfully carry it out. This is why we have oaths of office, and whatnot. You seem to be rejecting this very idea of how any human structure necessarily functions, in favor of some idea that laws can be objectively defined and mechanically executed?
> I wish we could get the government to hold themselves accountable, however they would need to pass a law to override the concept and they do not seem to be in any hurry to do so.
but then:
> invite not only you but everyone to stand against bad laws and practices
What do you mean by "stand against" if not ultimately pushing for reform, likely culminating in demanding some kind of government-inconvenient legislation that curtails abuses?
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle of federal law that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".
Under 42 USC § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate their constitutional rights or other federal rights.
This is interesting. In my country (Poland) parliament members have legal, immunity from criminal prosecution and arrest to the point of police not being able to stop them if they drunk drive. There have been some abuses like that.
The law is such that a prosecutor that wants to prosecute them has to ask the parliament. Then there is a vote and the parliament decides if the immunity is taken off.
In a healthy democracy, where there are more than same two parties switching the rule to one or the other it is very likely the current opposition will be the majority next time and they will vote to strip immunity from those that try to use it as a shield for criminals.
I think the price we pay for this (delay in getting justice) is well worth paying so the justice system can't be used as a weapon against political opponents easily.
The rules and laws allowing the federal government to take over a state case against a federal agent seem much more damaging.
The cops involved in the most recent Minneapolis shooting will almost certainly face no repercussions because of this. The state can bring a case but the feds are clearly uninterested, they would simply take the case into federal court and spike it.
That's not how it works. When a state prosecution of a federal officer is removed to federal court, it's still the state prosecutor who's in charge. The problem is that as long as they were performing their duties they get a lot of leeway. A recent case was a cyclist killed by a DEA agent that ran a stop sign. Case dismissed: federal agents tailing someone don't have to respect state traffic laws.
The state can't bring charges against a federal agent enforcing federal law, otherwise southern states could have sued the federal agents enforcing integration.
Individuals can have standing, but they have to be directly harmed first. You don't have standing just because the law "SilverElfin loses all his constitutional rights and can be arrested for nothing" gets passed. You do have standing once you've been arrested.
It's more like when the federal government passed a law giving people a recourse for when state officials violate their rights they did not write the law to (or purposefully wrote it to not) include the federal government.
>> Context menus take a noticeable amount of time to appear.
>I can almost guarantee this is from some endpoint management software your company installed.
It seems to be a common complaint online, dating back to the launch of 11. I see some of the blame being put on extensions but what changed in the extensions between 10 and 11 to cause this?
I know on my work computer I was experiencing this plus I almost always have to click show more and wait for that lag to finish.
I was able to edit the registry to show all at the cost of 1 lag...so I guess a step forward?
Walmart and Kroger near me now have one way metal cattle gates that you have to pass through when you enter. Makes me feel like cattle and that their assuming I am a thief. Trips to those locations have dropped.
The Home Depot cameras and screens that "BING BONG" loudly as you pass by to get you to notice them showing that they are recording you are also highly annoying.
I wish there was a greater variety of hardware stores near me...
You might be able to, however not easily like when you put out a simple structure fire.
The ground is riddled with small vents that allow oxygen in. If you were to inject a foaming agent and then flood the space you could eventually lower the temperature below the auto ignition temperature.
Might not be easy. Might not be cost effective right now.
But there is a reason that Pagnotti Enterprises bought the land and I doubt it is because they are looking at turning it into a nature reserve.
As far as I've been able to determine, Pagnotti Enterprises has owned land in that area for a very long time and has no apparent plans to mine there anytime soon. They got this new bit of land because the state renounced the right of way and sold it to the owners of the adjacent land. This wasn't a huge meaningful investment to Pagnotti, but they did get rid of the ruined road itself, probably because it was a tourist attraction and a lawyer said to get rid of it.
I like how the guy who is most grounded in how the government and corporations work is being presented as someone who is inexplicably yearning for the a point in history where things were at their bleakest.
With nary a comment about the intention of the company who is now buying up the land.
>Those that stayed had to go to court to defend their right to live on this abandoned land, all because they wanted to keep the mineral rights to their property. So now, people like Phil assume that the government is just waiting them out. Once they’re gone, putting out the fire will be easy enough. “They’ll take all that red hot coals, but also they’re going to get that rich anthracite coal,” he told us. “And I’m sure they’ll sell that. But are the people or the relatives going to get anything? It’s very doubtful. It’ll probably go to the federal government. Or the coal baron, maybe?”
>His voice, I noticed after a while, has a peculiar kind of nostalgia for the worst times in the world.
>so when coal company Pagnotti Enterprises bought the land in 2018
Perhaps they don't like the fact that someone is equating pet struggles to human struggles.
Doesn't sound like they are talking about them being a burden, just how their life has changed and how they can't do all the things that those without kids do.
reply