gripitandripit.bsky.social
147 posts
7 followers
29 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
It depends on the relationship the occupant has with the owner of the property. If Jill was just a friend of a friend who happened to spend the night then her permission would be far less compelling than if she's a roomate. Ultimately they got the decision of the homeowner though and he's top dog.
comment in response to
post
You get points for bringing up different arguments for and against the admission of each piece of evidence. Where you land in judgement doesn't really matter all that much as long as you provide sound reasoning and examination of all the factors. The question doesn't have a jurisdiction so who knows
comment in response to
post
I think the observations would get
comment in response to
post
I don't think working to undermine someone who is behaving illegally really counts as a coup. If anything it's upholding the commitment every service member makes during their oath of admission.
I think that the "what ifs" in this article are kind of off base.
comment in response to
post
They're doing more than you are.
comment in response to
post
Yes? I don't think it would be easy but I certainly could if it was an accident. Particularly if I had a golden opportunity to both apologize and help comfort those that I had harmed.
comment in response to
post
Is this pure speculation or what?
comment in response to
post
Seemingly they don't give a shit about due process at all.
comment in response to
post
Tell it to the judge, buddy. We're gonna get your guns!
comment in response to
post
The fact that they've been banned before?
comment in response to
post
If you need a sixth shot, firstly you aren't much of a marksman, but you can simply buy a revolver.
comment in response to
post
Yeah since when? The end of the AWB in the early aughts? For much of our nation's history those kind of magazines either didn't exist or were illegal. We need to return to those historical values that safeguarded our nation for decades.
comment in response to
post
yeah huh
comment in response to
post
First I'm going to ban all unusual and dangerous accessories, like magazines in excess of 5 rounds and red dot sights. Then I'm going to force all firearm owners to register their weapons. Then they'll have to demonstrate that they're up to date on their militia training. Only then we seize the arms
comment in response to
post
I mean I agree that the whole "historical tradition" bit in constitutional law is fucking stupid but I didn't come up with it.
comment in response to
post
Isn't that just more evidence of the historical tradition of regulating the ownership of firearms? That they specifically stated that they could not be seized in that law indicates that seizure was potential avenue of conduct prior to it's passage.
comment in response to
post
They existed at a time when there were other regulations specifically banning the private ownership of firearms not related to the operation of a militia.
comment in response to
post
"standard issue" is a phrase pertaining to the historical tradition of regulating military firearms.
comment in response to
post
what does "standard issue" mean in your mind?
comment in response to
post
Sorry they're "dangerous and unusual" arms that have a historical tradition of being regulated. Regardless of the particular verbiage they're seemingly outside the right that that the 2nd amendment protects.
comment in response to
post
I don't think it is downright silly. It's already been established that "arms" doesn't cover fully automatic weapons or high explosives or many of the other tools of modern warfare. The second amendment is an anachronism that actively harms the welfare of the country. 10 shots seems sufficient.
comment in response to
post
How is that?
comment in response to
post
Yeah I'm not super up to date on 2nd amendment caselaw but it seems like what he is saying is true? You should be able to ban firearm accessories like red-dot sights and the like.
comment in response to
post
Certainly regaining employment + backpay is not nothing for those individuals who were impacted. Is it a return to normalcy? No, not even close, but it is important.
The reality is that we need congress to act, the courts are not intended to check the executive behaving this way. It's a bandaid.
comment in response to
post
I mean the courts have reversed a number of firings. Obviously they're not going to be enough to stop what's happening but their work is very important and is preserving some semblance of the rule of law. It's really supposed to be Congress that is checking the executive, per SCOTUS. They aint.
comment in response to
post
This kid seems a bit too thick to recognize irony.
comment in response to
post
He wants to be popular and thinks this is how he does it. Also he doesn't like the pharma / medical industry so he just rationalizes the harm he's causing. He's a fucking dipshit.
comment in response to
post
They don't want to alienate the nimrod demographic that they've been pursuing so ardently.
comment in response to
post
100% behind you and your assessment of this moment. Please keep pushing.
comment in response to
post
You sound like a sop in your NYT Op-ed. Stop collaborating with the pieces of shit that are trying to destroy of government and use what leverage you have to fight back.
comment in response to
post
This is bullshit. If the Dems won't fight back they need to be removed. Trump and Elon are trying to dismantle the Federal Government and will seemingly continue to do so with the assent of the minority party. Chuck Schumer and any other Dem senator that flips on this needs to be primaried.
comment in response to
post
Just saw a clip from this podcast and it's exactly what I was hoping it would not be. I rescind all my hope about this approach. This thing is entirely Newsome hoping to have it both ways and collaborate with people that want major parts of his constituency dead. Sorry for dragging it out.
comment in response to
post
That seems a bit reductive but you do you. I think we are well past the point of needing to be practical to attend to the degrading political reality in the USA. The republicans are actively demonstrating that they do not care about the rule of law. Keeping them out of power is a priority imo.
comment in response to
post
What's the chance that this was as cynically targeted effort to reach out ot voters in swing states that were identified as getable in order to win in 2028?
comment in response to
post
Don't they already have a pretty massive and effective platform though? It seems like this is an attempt to break into and potentially siphon off some portions of that system. Dems needs moron voters, moron voters don't need a dem Podcasting platform.
comment in response to
post
I mean they're in the whitehouse and all over Congress. They're normalized already in huge portions of the USA.
comment in response to
post
Right but I think JD Vance's politics are significantly worse than Newsome's. I just don't want Vance or his ilk in the whitehouse again.
comment in response to
post
Right he's following in the wake of success.
comment in response to
post
Pritzker would be my preference at this point but any port in a storm...
comment in response to
post
Are you kidding? Isn't JD Vance the person who originally lended the credibility of a sitting US senator to alt-right podcasts?
comment in response to
post
oh :(
comment in response to
post
I mean the potential other conclusion is that they are trying to make themselves known to people who are already inclined to vote for Fascists to see if any of them can be peeled away. Certainly starting with a band of scooby doo villains makes you appear reasonable to a lot of scumbags who vote
comment in response to
post
Is that what actually happened on this Podcast? He had Charlie Kirk on to tell him how much he agreed with him?
comment in response to
post
If there is a better option I'll gladly vote for them over Gavin Newsome.
comment in response to
post
Trump isn't cutting to the best deal - he's actively harming the United States in a way that doesn't make any sense if he was being actually self interested.
I mean most politicians are opportunists to some degree or another. I'll vote for Gavin it means we don't get Trump Pt.3 or JD pt.1
comment in response to
post
Is Gavin Newsome a fascist? I mean I realize that's the position you're putting forward now but I thought he was supposed to be a fairly mainstream Dem governor.
comment in response to
post
Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon both know the President of the United States on a first name basis. They don't need Gavin to have access to powerful platforms - they already are the dominant force on most of them. I think you've missed the train on the state of discourse in the USA.
comment in response to
post
lol you called me blue maga and a nazi because I said I'd be flexible on voting for anyone that isn't a fascist for president. Maybe you should take a second and a few deep breaths and think about what's being said.
comment in response to
post
uhh I don't really listen to podcasts because they're mostly dogwater but does talking to someone on one mean you're adopting all their horrible beliefs wholesale?
comment in response to
post
Listen to the podcast? I'll pass - I vote for the furthest left politician I can at every opportunity I get, but we are reaching a point where continued losses jeopardize the opportunity to even compete in the future.