For the record, that would be an illegal order and should be refused by everyone involved in the military chain.

(Whether or not it is refused is a different matter.)

They sent back the question of what is an official act. And when the judge comes back with something like “official acts are those in which a president is acting in an official capacity as the president to fulfill obligations and duties of the president.” (IANAL….so there’s probably some anal retentive detail that is super critical in missing)

In any case, when challenging the election, that is not an official act- that was something done by Trump-the-candidate.

Inviting foreign dignitaries, however frequently is. (But probably not when selling out America and other spies to keep compromat from leaking)

Organizing an insurrection in the US never is, however.

I’m alarmed by the alarm in the dissent- they probably know where this is going, but POTUS has enjoyed some immunity anyhow as far as official acts go. And when it’s kept to a reasonable understanding… that’s more or less good.

Their alarm suggests that the majority here is not going to have a reasonable understanding when that gets appealed.

I think this is a strong argument to legalize prostitution to provide legal recourse and protection for anyone in the profession who’s getting forced into the work.

I agree with this statement. Sex work should be legalized, not least of which for protecting everyone involved. However… something to keep in mind is that… hundreds of thousands… is not that large a percentage of men. Even if you assume it’s 900,000 men, the total number of people in the US is 350 million- meaning that 900k is 0.25%. granted, I’m blending men and women- there’s plenty of women who also buy trafficked slaves as well. but if you figure half the people in the use are men, and it’s only men doing it… that’ still…half a percent.

thinking about this…

you know how gaudy most trump towers are?

and how gaudy a lot of Saudi-rich-people-places are…?

Yeah. I wonder if… it’ll be extra gaudy, or just straight up… tacky.

If by “bet” you mean tripling down on massive bribes…. You betcha.

Agreed it’s just a different technique, but I’d suggest some techniques are more objectionable than others- both of these are on about that same tier.

She’s a cat. Obviously.

A black cat if you need to be specific, with glorious amounts of floof,

get some extra fuse so you can light it and walk away before it does it’s thing.

then make sure your face isn’t on any cameras with the firecrackers out.

firstly, I’m not a bot.

Secondly, what I really want is to stop the slow slid into Fascism. Biden is, in my opinion, demonstrably incapable or unwilling of doing that. You’re welcome to share your opinions, and we can have a discussion about it. Though, also in my opinion, you don’t like hearing alternative viewpoints, considering the name calling and accusations.

EDIT: Third, I already have. the argument goes no where. Before the primary it was “Save it for the primary,” during the primary it was “Don’t undermine the incumbent, you idiot”, in now its “name your candidate”. in 2019 it was “learn to compromise”. I’m not interestedin the argument because you- or people like you- are unwilling to listen. Biden is problematic. but you’re not going to be able to shore up his election campaign by digging your head in the sand.

Other “missteps”? Gaza and Immigration feature prominently, too.

You’re right. They’re fascists doing fascist things.

So what’s *Biden *done about it? what action has he successfully taken against the erosion of rights americans used to enjoy?

Don’t sit there and tell me POTUS is totally powerless to do anything. He’s not. we both know he’s not. even with a divided congress half of which is totally obstructionist, Biden is not powerless.

(That’s the electrified one, right?)

yup.

I don’t believe undecided voters even exist. Like. No. Seriously.

This is the most polarized election in US history. we know both the candidates, we know how they did during their tenure as president. we’ve all got our opinion on it. The only question is, really, “how many voters are going to show up”- and more specifically, “which side loses the most voters?”

Honestly, there was never a positive upside for the debate. It’s just an opportunity to give them more soundbites or images of biden looking… well, old. (and give trump a bunch of one-line zingers. his base doesn’t care about the truth, just that he ‘owns the libs’)

the third rail, maybe?

I’m not the one waiving a magic wand thinking Biden is a perfect candidate.

You are.

As I’ve said elsewhere, baring Biden himself stepping down it’s suicide for any one to oppose him. So no I’m not going to enter that fucking argument with someone who can’t even see what’s clearly before them.

Especially considering I’m guessing you give credit for the American recovery act to Biden even as you’d scramble to insist Biden doesn’t have the power to pass law.

So, not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties…

… those aren’t missteps?

and they still got the deal they wanted in the end

Is it in the fucking contract? no? Then they got jack shit.

or maybe you could understand why it’s a form of torture and understand what I’m trying to say.

Hint: because it put somebody into a vulnerable, easily manipulated state. whether she knew it or not, she was taking advantage of that vulnerable state. she brushed off prior attempts to talk it out, which is fine. But she doesn’t get to unilaterally expect that conversation on her timetable. He gets to say ‘no, I’m not in a place to talk about this,’ too.

Are you the gf? Do you know if they did? Or will?

Or are you just assuming?

Or are you suggesting that I’m being over dramatic? Cuz, she woke him up in the middle of sleeping at night. Sleep deprivation is absolutely a form of torture, and while it’s probably not sleep deprivation (yet) it’s absolutely manipulative as fucking hell.

I can’t know if OP is exaggerating or not, or if they’re going to or not. Yes that’s an assumption on my part.

As related, though, the behaviors described are heavily manipulative.

As related: she decided unilaterally when to have that conversation. And she decided to do it when OP was near-comatose in sleep. An altered state that being roused from does not contribute to reasonable conversation.

Walking away is fine, but it could have (and should have,) waited until the morning.

Now look at what she’s saying is the problem- he missed a text, but also wasn’t waiting to escort her downstairs. Ultimately- if this is legitimate on her part it’s “you don’t care about me”.

Now look at the fears she is expressing- that it’s literally unsafe to get dropped at the curb and walk in. While it’s certainly possible, the reality is that if it’s that unsafe, then asking what he’d do- and she jumps straight to killing?!

And the CCTV stuff- which OP has no realistic way of knowing or resolving.

Yeah; no. All of this is meant to put OP on the defensive, in a state that OP is not able to think clearly. As relayed it’s straight up manipulation, and if the most vile sort.

This is absolutely manipulative.

Whether she realizes it or not, refusing to engage or talk about it, except in her own time frame- is not a good sign for a healthy relationship, and when she did decide to talk about it, put you into a compromised position- being unable to think clearly.

The questions she’s asking are meant to elicit fear and massive guilt. Though to be blunt, I’m going to assume there’s no real danger of any of that happening, I assume the neighborhood is fairly safe. Because usually it is.

As for what you’d do…? Call the cops. Duh. You (probably) don’t have the resources to find any one and kill them, and besides which, if she’s really asking that you do, uhm… dodge that bullet.

Sleep deprivation is a form of torture.

This is absolutely manipulative.

Still rampant manipulation, though.

I’d say at least on the level of gaslighting

They wouldn’t even need to actually abuse power at all.

Just order the secret service to take over their personal security details, and attach members of the seal teams to each detail…. “As advisors”.

It would be an implicit threat, sure, but also, a totally legal one, and they could hardly argue that “ensuring their safety and wellbeing” is not an official act,