Ah, right. The Supreme Court decided we only get to have the rights we can remember under any given circumstance. Don't let the cops catch you sleeping. Totally normal stuff in a totally normal democracy. Not at all a sign of any sort.

Then.. why.. not just open the schools later in the day?

"Ah you think depression is your ally? You merely adopted the depression. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see optimism until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but unrealistic idealism!" - Me.. and.. most millennials, probably.

I think Ken M is as shallow as he is pediatric.

This one has been easy for me lately: They spell 'lose' as 'loose'.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face.. forever." - Some book or something.

I'm not sure anyone here works for the DNC. We're not trying to get ourselves elected. People are absolutely allowed to criticize others for the intended consequences of their actions when they get exactly what's expected. In this case, they've alienated themselves.

Ah, that explains it. I only watch Night Court. It went completely over my head.

I just want to say I'm glad other people understand how ridiculous of a suggestion this is for fixing Windows problems. It has become such a low effort nonsensical approach because people don't truly understand what it does and it feels like doing something. It's the new 'have you tried turning it off and on again.' dism and sfc. Then when someone mentions how absurd the thinking is that this fixes anything but a small negligible fraction of issues, someone always chimes in how there was this one time where it worked for them. Perpetuating this low effort, almost useless approach to troubleshooting. I've fixed more issues with BIOS updates than I have with either of those tools.

You're sincerely confused? It's clear you have no background in anything military or perhaps even psychology. It's power-projection. You've become so conditioned to believe that power-projection is only used as a tool of oppression that you're overlooking the fact that it's better to point guns than it is to face guns, and it's certainly worse to face guns without one to point back. Would you rather cede power to those who desire it than support empowering those who would wield it to protect your right to exists? You want to exist in an ideal world? Be willing to fight for it -- the ones who wish to oppress others are certainly willing to use violence to achieve their means. Once you've claimed victory over violent oppression, then you can set the guns aside and build a society around the flimsy concept of a disarmed society. Guns are still tools and have uses outside of violence, but that's outside the scope of the point I'm making.

It's almost like authoritarianism and despotism are still authoritarianism and despotism regardless of what ideological dress they wear.

Not with that attitude, they won't.

Are the thieves with plenty of money to burn in the room with you, right now? Can you point them out? Where did they hurt you? Was it actually EA or Ubisoft but you're scared to let us know? Was it Paradox's DLC scheme, or Total War? Are they the ones who really hurt you? It's ok. You're in a safe space. The AI generated loot skins can't hurt you, here.

You mean.. mothers breastfeeding feeding their children? You mean men who find big rocks and throw them into water from heights to make a big splash? Do you mean people who donate their organs to other people? Do you mean the many artists, scientists, teachers, and basically everyone else that gets their ass out of bed every day to then put a smile on their face for other people, despite feeling existential despair inside because the last shred of reason for being has been invested in someone or something else, so they keep moving? Robin Williams?

I think we have very different ideas of what self-interest is. Namely, I think that you have confused the idea that one must suffer, or at least feel nothing, or it's not altruistic enough. That one should not enjoy acts of love, kindness, caring, giving, art, exploration... or they're secretly solipsistic. This isn't the condemnation of the world you think it is. This feels like a projection of an internal insecurity onto the greater portion of humanity.

I think most people have been guilty of thinking this at some point. Rather than feel threatened by my words or that I'm being critical of you and only you, I would ask that you do what I did when I once thought this very thought... think on if you're really willing to live the rest of your lived experience with this thought at the forefront. Not everyone gets this one right, but it could have consequences on your ability to actually 'enjoy' another human being without needing something from them to do so.

So, just to be clear, that 'something that can't be overcome' is.. checks notes capitalism?

Armchair fullback, here. The moment they let David Hogg go was the moment that opportunity slipped through their fingers. The problem is nobody was paying attention. The Democrats have no message, once again. They are being neutered by internalized and entrenched incompetence. They consistently choose the worst options because there's no flight left in them and when there is they spend it fighting each other. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the end of the party. Super delegates still exist within the party. These are not leaders. These are failures. Get rid of super delegates in current form and we might have a small chance at even discussing recovery.

I'm with you, and I'm all for due process. However, I have some questions that I would like to ask, as you seem well grounded.

Are soldiers in a war that engage in active combat due the civil treatment of due process before they're retaliated against?

What constitutes a soldier in this case? Uniforms? Acting against people without any expectation of due process holding them accountable? State sanctioned? I must be missing something.

Isn't the states desire to suspend habeas corpus a tacit admission of desire for civil war against ones own peoples?

I'm a bit confused -- at what point we're supposed to defend ourselves and not rely on due process? What is the proverbial line-in-the-sand where tolerance cedes way for intolerance -- especially in regards to fascism?

I think I must be missing something. Due process is great, but it doesn't stop people from killing my family. It just holds them accountable after the fact. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the one you're disagreeing with, I'm just wondering if your sense of tolerance will protect my loved ones from violent fascists and I'm starting to get the sense that doesn't matter. I'm starting to get the sense that others will tell me I'm wrong for using violent means to protect myself and others from violence and I hope I'm wrong about that. Not trying to be disingenuous.

"Won't someone think of the children?"

I'll humor this, even though I'm tired of answering this same question. I'll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we've established the basic concept, let's break some of it down. If there's $100 in circulation, it doesn't matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that's called a healthy economy. If people buy 'too much milk and the prices go up' then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can't sell it for less, you innovate. If you can't innovate, or sell for less, then you can't compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn't cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn't realistic anymore, but that's due to capitalism failing -- the underlying principals of the example still hold true.

Shut up, fascist apologist.