hopesdead

After that tell Trump he hasn’t been sworn in yet.

In January, Stewart received a commendation from the department for responding to “issues related to the houseless population” with “compassion and professionalism toward everyone.” As the Courier Journal first reported, Stewart is facing a 20-day unpaid suspension for helping to cover up a subordinate’s use of force against a man likely experiencing homelessness last year — a suspension he is now appealing.

What the fuck? They praised the dude for racking up citations. Look, if one person is getting a majority of the citations, clearly the system is flawed to some degree. But they later found he was covering an incident against a homeless person. Talk about flip-flopping.

Is Trump doing anything legal at this point? I genuinely want to know if his existence is a walking case of law breaking.

Yeah but the vice president is daughter of Rodrigo Duterte, a man who is best known for extrajudicial killings in a “war on drugs” and he didn’t even like that his daughter was running.

Oh and the president is the son of Ferdinand Marcos. His family hated by so many.

Right, well I forgot they claimed such.

Okay, how is this any different from what Fox News, OAN and NewsMax do?

Yeah but domestic terrorism itself (last I checked) has no criminal statute. It would be much easier if we had a law defining domestic terror and how to prosecute it.

Well, that does mention it but not that one. Two people try to sell the milk.

Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but wasn’t there a Portlandia sketch about why raw milk is bad?

Apparently being the victim of genocide gives you a free pass.

At this point, looking at this vehicle with your naked eyes is bound to cause damage.

I’m pretty sure this is in response to a recent California bill that forces digital storefronts to disclose if it is a license you are getting. Otherwise the storefront is not allowed to use words like “buy” or “purchase”.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426

I don’t want him associating with my favorite movie. Secondly, he probably thinks the theatrical cut is the canonical one.

I assumed it was a weird reference to the Phoenix Force from X-Men.

Could they not have found a pun for fox?

Shouldn’t Church and State doctrine (or whatever it is called) immediately make all of this illegal?

I would immediately cite anti-LGBTQIA+ sentimentality as the contributing factor. While lots of people understand that homosexuals aren’t the only people who can contract the infection, I’m sure the treatments being aimed primarily at homosexuals as the highest risk group, will make certain people unwilling to believe it is a potential risk.

It sucks that safe sex isn’t a thing being discussed. However it does feel like anti-abortion laws would be unnecessary if teens had access to sought information. I’m sure with the advent of Internet based pornography, teens are being influenced more by that with no educational tools to say that people in pornography (I am sure not everyone across the industry follows health guidelines but for the “professionals” you’d hope they do) have access to testing and other health related care.

If we are going to be cynical about this, one reason I suspect sex education is no longer being thought would be to fall inline with twisted alt-right/conservative values about women NEEDING to have children. With lack of information about contraception, teens might believe they can’t be safe. Maybe they actually have access to contraception but aren’t aware. Maybe contraception is being banned. If you have no contraception, then the rate of pregnancy will increase and maybe those anti-abortion lawmakers wish to see more unwanted pregnancies instead of anyone wishing to engage in recreational sex that doesn’t aim for procreation.

I’ve heard supposedly those people got severely taxed for doing that.

Taxes? I don’t know full details or if this is even tangentially related (or maybe it is the same thing). There is a supposed practice as some universities (maybe just the non-UC’s and Cal State’s) that if you were a relative (I’m assuming immediate family only) working at say USC for example, you could get accepted into the university without paying tuition. The only catch was you got severely taxed (something like 30%; of what, I don’t know) for attending tuition-free.

Considering the news out of Russia about making childless families ideology illegal has been in the headlines… does this dude think he works for Russia?

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add the word “ideology”.