krebssteven

joined 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago

Most people do not care about some corrupt politician whose activities seem inconsequential to their own circumstances is getting away. It needs to affect them in a tangible way for people to care.

[–] [email protected] 139 points 15 hours ago (13 children)

Imagine Alaska seceding to Canada because the angry orange turd couldn't help himself 😂

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

And Apple is just calculating when the costs are justifying a required change. This is really not much of a blow to the walled garden strategy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Well well well, if that isn’t the consequences of your choices coming around to bite you in the ass. I am well aware that the individuals suffering are not individually to be blamed but I have zero sympathy in this particular case.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago (3 children)

‘Chamberlaining’ has never worked.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That is correct. But in this case, we can absolutely blame a specific part of humanity for this.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There have been historical reasons for the US to eye Greenland, mostly related to cold war defense strategies. It’s confusing that a Trump would want to realize these thoughts when it would be a offense to his handler in moscow. Suggests that these historical reasons are not his motivation.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 days ago

WWIII and no time to deprogram the military infrastructure aka MaaS to not adjust savings time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m just sorry for the wife, having to deal with such a brainwashed wimp.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Read the story. Waltz set parts of the messages to be deleted after a certain time period. That by itself is illegal as hell and does indeed pertain to record keeping requirements and down the line FOIA requests.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What are you on about? The law I mentioned specifically means that they are excempt from measures that would go against their religious convictions unless these convictions do not withstand ‘scrutiny’.

What I am saying is that if a group of people is posing a public health risk because of their religious convictions, they should be treated as a health hazard and for example be quarantined, even against their will - if they are unwilling to compromise on these convictions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Slippery slope arguments help tackling issues at hand how exactly? ;)

This isn’t an issue that just spontaneously arose. This has been an issue ever since the implementation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

view more: next ›