LifeInMultipleChoice
My guess is they figured if someone got to far out of line president would be forcibly removed and the constitution ammended. At the time 1 person didn't have the ability to command armys across the world. Communications were by horse. You could likely take out the president with minimal effort if you wanted as the secret service didn't exist yet either.
Send a boat out to deliver people to attack a fort in oppenents land. 2 days later an emissary delivers a surrender... Oops, you can't catch the boat nor notify them on any other manner, weeks after a peace treaty is signed, people are are attacked by the people they surrendered too.
Traveling in luxury around the world and being able to go into international waters where laws don't apply for everything else I suppose
Radical Marxist communist fascist or something wasn't it. Lol
Throw in Trump has stated to take people's guns without due process, and Pence had to talk him out of it to ensure the 2A voters wouldn't turn against him, now apparently he wants to do outdoor events behind shields of some sort... I can imagine it will be long before MAGA followers agree it is to dangerous to have people buying guns without proper background checks... Which would have likely prevented this person from owning an AK, as he has previous weapons charges.
I changed mine. Also it's a widget, you can just take it off your phone screen and add the Firefox one of you want, or whichever you please.
It does seem more effective to place some other form of markers like metal poles down up higher with bells hanging on fishing line or some shit, if you hit the bells, you'd hit the bridge. Place them 50 yards before the bridge
Alright, throw the bill onto the vote to re-instated them. Line 1 to re-instated Line 2: Do you think this bill should have passed.
If it gets a majority vote the legislative branch must write a full synopsis and bill to be voted on in the next congressional election (every other year) that would be an amendment to their state Constitution.
It won the popular vote twice, that represents what the people wanted.
Wouldn't that mean that the publishers get to sell another round of copies to all of the public libraries, so the public pays for them again via their taxes? Sucks but it may benefit some of the writers/editors/publishers.
We need to have politicians automatically suspended when they sign a bill that is found unconstitutional. The politician should only be able to be re-instated by a majority popular vote, to ensure the people still believe that representative acts in the good faith of the people.
How many times are voters going to turn up to defend these antics. Are you going to show up every other weekend to revote in Desantis? Or let him be removed from office for trampling on the rights of the people and wasting your time and taxpayer money.
That seems likely. The question comes down to where the line should be drawn. Allow the apps the be installed and then when the data is eventually reported/found by the app owners to have them file law suits against those who are "stealing" from them, or to not allow the cracked application to be loaded in the first place, which is easily disguised as a security protocol because if an app has code in it that is not originally supposed to be there, it is very possibly a form of malware, which then can hurt the users in the long run or short run if it actually acts malicious and starts doing shit like old school viruses did on PC.
People want to say we own the device so we should be able to do whatever we want, but blatantly allowing people to install cracked apps with keyloggers onto their phones unintentionally will get them sued, and ultimately hurt how many people stay using their products.
Imagine every user and password with the site listed was suddenly just accessible by everyone. It would be a hellscape of credit card companies trying to stop accounts because you order 18 pizzas off the dominos app in Georgia, and another 13 sandwiches in the burger king app at the same time in Jersey.
We need to have the freedom to load apps we trust, but if you look at the standard user base, that's who they have to make the phones for.
Could do something like make the users agree to terms by taking the phone into developer mode that makes them non responsible somehow? Might not hold up in court when they get sued though. "All the photos I took on my phone got shared online"
If you hear 5 people yell at 5 people then they take a vote and the vote comes out 101 to 5 and the rest staying silent (hypothetical), it's different than 53-53. It helps you understand what others believe/support while not having to listen to all of them talk.