GiuseppeAndTheYeti

joined 1 year ago
[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Up until the recent Supreme Court decision there was already oversight. Al Awlaqi was deemed to be an imminent threat and his killing was authorized by the National Security Council which would include 10-20 other individuals with access to superior knowledge of Al Awlaqi's actions and includes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Homeland Security advisor. All people tasked with positively identifying imminent national security threats. The country he was seeking refuge in had even ordered him to be captured dead or alive. And if you're questioning his involvement in al-Qaeda, he appeared in a video bearing al-Qaeda's emblem praising the two prior mentioned terrorists and called them students of his.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (9 children)

You're asking this question for no reason as the answer is clearly no.

And I don't really think you'll garner much sympathy for Anwar Al-Awlaqi's "murder". He left the United States and was orchestrating terroristic plots to murder innocent civilians in the United States. He was involved in two high profile incidents of terrorism as a commander for al Queda. Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood and an attempted bombing of an intentional flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The judge in this case is allowing the woman affected by the original murder charge to sue the prosecution for $1 million in damages for jailing her for 2 days. It's a garbage ambiguous title meant to farm outrage when it could instead be instilling hope in progressives wanting to undo the harm that took place.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Supreme Court function is a hot button topic right now because of Roe v. Wade. The vast majority of Americans agree that at the very least SCJs should have term limits, so start there and force a vote on an amendment. Then if it fails, you have votes on record for the next election. Many Republicans have pro-choice, pro-union, anti-lobbying stances that aren't aware that their representative in congress would vote against because it never comes to their table in the first place. Some(not all) would change their vote from red to at least 3rd party if we were able to highlight those issues in voting records during campaign season.

And even if you feel that isn't worth the time or energy for only speculative shifts in the public vote, the opinion you're expressing is that the constitution should remain unchanged until some undetermined date in the future which may never come. And that is more damaging to the bureaucratic system than a proposed amendment failing because definitions shift over time. It wasn't too long ago that property was determined to include black people because it suited the interest of wealthy land owners in the south. Then because of that we ended up fighting a civil war.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 16 points 2 months ago (6 children)

So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party's favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It's not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They'll just wait their turn.

Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.

That's not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren't truly lame duck.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's worse than a lot of people are imagining. They were responding to her call about someone that was lurking around her house/neighborhood. The police arrived when she was making dinner and she wasn't in the kitchen. She stood and talked to the two officers with a calm demeanor then they allowed her to/told her to move the pot off the stove to reduce a fire risk. Then the officer charged in her murder shot her from a considerable distance after telling her he was going to shoot her in the face if she didn't put the pot down.

When the other officer said he was going to retrieve the first aid kit, the demented POS that shot her in the face told him not to bother due to the extent of her injuries. Fortunately he went and got it anyway because it seems that he's at least somewhat competent at his job. He also was the only one of the two to have his body cam footage rolling during the whole interaction. The officer charged didn't attempt to turn his cam on until after he fired his weapon.

There's protests scheduled to be taking place today and the vocal minority in and around town are screaming about how there's going to be riot violence and looting of businesses downtown.

What ton of misinformation are you reading? Other than dipshits trying to spin it as a conspiracy to raise his polling numbers.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you stop with this whole false flag BS? The kid was over 400 feet away. The margin for error with a rifle at that distance, shooting for a target that small is zero. A slightly stiffer left to right wind and the bullet shatters his skull and Trump is picking bits of bone fragments out of his brain. Or if he shifts his head tenths of a second before the shooter pulls the trigger. Or if the sights were zeroed the day before.

It's asinine to believe that this was staged. There's a 20 year old kid shot dead on the roof by secret service and a 50 year old bystander dead in the stands behind Trump. Trump got lucky. Just as he always fucking does. I wish that wasn't the case, but that's what happened and now we just need to figure out how we deal with it.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I mean, based on the amount of bottled water people drink im pretty sure that could be a concern for most people. I don't drink water bottled in plastic because I think it's wasteful and contributes to the massive amount of plastic pollution already going on, but even if we consider that the recycling process is 100% efficient, those thin, flimsy bottles are still getting heated by and exposed to sunlight. It would be naive to think they aren't leaching plastics into the water. Just buy a cheap metal bottle and refill from the tap. That's where all the major brands get their water from anyway.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

At the expense of your credit score tanking and never being able to recover.

[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I recognize that, but even if they were to still somehow navigate the economic situation, the government officials would immediately be charged with sedition and a warrant would be issued for their arrest. They wouldn't be able to flee the country because any allied country would extradite them to the formal United States government. So the only other option would be to stay and forcefully defend their arrest. That brings in the national guard and any escalation would drive us toward a true civil war. MAYBE secession becomes so popular amongst the population that they also are willing to defend their secessionists political leaders with force, but I doubt it. Even in the event of it becoming a true civil war, the rest of the United States is absolutely massive. There'd be no way of defending against all of the avenues of attack. Air superiority would be established immediately by surrounding AFBs, mobile AA systems, and returning aircraft carriers. Naval blockade would prevent any foreign aid from reaching the West Coast. Lack of any real microchip processing plants would make the proliferation of modern arms impossible....

I just can't see any other outcome than those government leaders being arrested, replaced, then any secession being nullified and reversed by the newly installed government officials. Though if you are able to think of something, I'd be open to thinking of a potential rebuttal.

view more: ‹ prev next ›