WoodScientist

They committed treason and tried to overturn a free and fair election. They should have been given a kangaroo court show trial and publicly hanged on the national mall for their crimes.

>The problem is if Biden had done this everything he did would have been struck down why it works for Trump is because Republican Congress doesn’t stand up or have a spine when it’s a Republican leader That's why you keep trying. That's what Republican presidents do. When they want to do something by executive order, they have their lawyers come up with a dozen different ways to accomplish the same goal using various provisions in different laws. They implement one. If SCOTUS strikes it down, they just move on to another method from the list. It takes years for the court to strike it down, and in the meantime they keep doing what they wanted to do.

I agree that he mishandled the conflict in Israel, but I not sure what Biden could have done to stop the abolishment of Roe v Wade as an example.

You’re just not thinking as creatively as a Republican. That’s the main problem with shit libs like Biden. They’re not willing to be creative and use the actual authority they do have. They demand more power while not responsibly using the power they do have. They just do nothing and removed that they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. People floated all sorts of options for Biden to protect abortion rights after Roe fell, using just the power of the presidency, no action required by Congress. Because he’s a shit lib, he decided to do nothing instead.

Among those things proposed were:

• Offering abortion services on US military bases in states were abortion is illegal. Either by military doctors or by private groups hosted on military bases.

• Put protection in place on federal data sharing with local and state police to restrict its use for enforcing anti-abortion laws.

• Put in vending machines in post offices selling abortion pills OTC.

• Restricting funding to states that restrict abortion.

• Come up with many tactics like these. If SCOTUS rules against it, adjust the tactic slightly and try it again with something different. SCOTUS can only move so quickly, and it would take years for them to strike down any particular scheme.

These are the kinds of things Republicans do when they control the White House. Democrats don’t show this level of creativity. Instead they just removed about not having a 60 vote majority in the Senate.

Liberal simps always like to bring up the fact that Democrats have almost never had a 60 vote majority in the Senate, saying that's why Dems can't do anything. Yet that never seems to be a barrier to Republicans. Can you imagine a Democratic president threatening to cut off healthcare dollars to hospitals that don't provide trans-affirming healthcare? The reason you can't is the problem with the Democratic party. Republicans are willing to use every scrap of authority they have. They find creative uses for using what procedural powers they have to accomplish incredible things with just the power of the executive branch. Democrats *removed* that they can't do anything unless they have 60 votes in the Senate. There's always some other excuse for why they can't get something done.

Democrats never use the powers they actually do have, to pass the changes they could pass. Why would you trust them with more power?

>Courts are overburdened, and technology like gen AI promises consistency and efficiency. I would argue that in criminal matters, an overburdened court system is a feature, not a bug. If every law were enforced 100% of the time, 100% of the population would be in prison for life. There are far too many laws for a human being to be aware of them all, let alone follow them. We WANT our court systems to have a finite throughput. This forces prosecutors to be judicious about what cases they bring to trial. You don't prosecute everyone who goes 1 mph over the speed limit. Instead, you focus your finite resources on the guy going 20 mph over the limit. You don't prosecute the girl who steals a tube of lip gloss to the fullest extent of the law. You go after those stealing thousands of dollars of merchandise with the intent to flip it. The real danger is that the penalties we have written into the law assume that they will be enforced rarely. A $250 fine for speeding is normal. But that fine was set assuming that for every one time you get caught speeding, you'll have committed the act dozens of times. Speeding is a fairly minor crime. We don't want people getting life-ruining amounts of fines for minor traffic law violations. We want it to sting, but we don't want to see someone made homeless because they drive a bit over the speed limit. But if suddenly every minor traffic violation were fined, everyone would be driven into bankruptcy. I don't want the courts to be efficient. I want them to be overworked and unable to meet the workload prosecutors would like to throw at them. I want prosecutors to have to settle with indicted people before the full hammer of the law comes down on them. I want them to have to pick and choose their battles. The law was not written to be universally applied. It was written with prosecutorial discretion in mind.

You can still buy those expensive appliances. The brands exist. Just be prepared to pay the prices your grandparents paid.

Eh. It made more sense hundreds of years ago for people to build houses that lasted for centuries. That kind of construction makes sense in periods of slow technological and social change. But think of how differently people live now vs just a hundred years ago. Imagine buying a house without running water, electric wiring, or insulation. Sure, old homes can be renovated to have these. But that requires tearing the thing down to the bare stone or wood walls and starting from scratch. You have to gut the entire building. The only thing that remains is the shell, a shell which represents only 20% of the cost of the building, if that. Most of the cost of a building is not in the structure itself, yet that's the only part that gets saved in a complete gutting and renovation. If you build a house today that lasts centuries, the only way that house will still be occupied 300 years from now is if it's been gutted down to the studs multiple times over the generations. And at that point, why build an ultra-durable house in the first place? Why not build something lighter that requires fewer resources up front, and can simply be torn down and recycled once it's become obsolete?

Well, you see, the gravity is very strong in Denmark. This causes a high amount of time dilation. This causes clocks in Denmark to move substantially slower than those in the rest of the world. He's experienced 20 years. She's only experienced about 2.

Random people can’t get on the jury, and jurors won’t have access to the person on trial. You can’t “just murder” the person on trial.

In what way? You still have to get 12 randomly selected people to agree to kill a person. And the option would still be available for life without parole. So it’s not like the bad guy is going to be out walking free. And you can’t just sign yourself up for a jury.

I like the idea of having capital punishment. But it can only be sentenced by a unanimous jury. And each of the 12 jurors will be hanged along with the person they’re condemning. This will be done with the full knowledge of the jurors. They will know that if they vote for death, they themselves will die. Is there some Hitlerian figure whose continued existence is such a risk, is so damaging, is so detrimental to the world that it warrants the state committing murder? Fine. Find 12 people willing to give up their own lives for the cause.

Mater tua.

Running automated hacking and blackmail campaigns against AI companies.

That’s simply not true. Or you’re confusing antique century-old porcelain with finishes not used today with contemporary pieces.

We actually got a full set of wedding china, and we got married in 2018. We’re elder Millennials. While I tell people that they should probably skip the hina, I actually enjoy it. Growing up my parents had a set of china that only came out for company and holidays, and it had a certain charm to it. And I’ve found our set serves a similar role. I actually keep it in the very same cabinet my mom had when I was a kid (she’s long since used a fancier cabinet that matches their dining set.) But even in 2025, it can be nice to have a set of China. There’s just something special about having people over, either for social occasions or holidays, and being able to offer them a really nice place setting that isn’t part of your normal repertoire. I do got out of my way to use it though. You could just be stopping by my house for a chat, and if I offer you coffee, I’ll probably give it to you in fine china.

We have one. A small one that came with this little countertop ceramic honey pot we found at a pottery shop. We actually tried using it, but the ants got to the literal honey pot very quickly.

I really wonder about what people thought of that then. Did people really think it was a medical thing, or was this just a socialy respectable way for a man who couldn’t get his wife off to pass the task on to someone who could perform the task with an air of medical respectability?