MuadDib

Energy ___________ / \ / _______ \ / / \ \ | | [===] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | [===] | | \ \_______/ / \ / ___\___________/___ | 0000 | | ___________ | | | | | | | RADIATION | | | | HAZARD | | | |_____________| | |_____________________| Patents

Doris How can man die better than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods Solstad

Give Trump lots of hugs, hot chocolate and a blankie.

∞

ヽ(´ー`)人(´∇｀)人(`Д´)ノ 0 ♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ ( ･o･) ┓

GAS IT Little bit ignorant ( ˘︹˘ ) (>‿◠) Little bit knowledgable

Purple hearts

I'm a fan

My profession

Sattva

I know ancient memes

Project 2024

Fully fledged folds

Big Ben seems to think that a president can't just murder maids and drone Muslims without consequences, which is puzzling to me. Why has the Supreme Court decided to do all this now, Ben? Why now? Why not when Obama or Bush were in office? Help me understand. I am an ignoramus and a scholar. What is the actual legal substance behind the ruling? What is the new prescident before the wild left/right interpretations and hypotheticals are considered? If only I could find a legal expert to help me untangle all these big words... This is all Claude could tell me: (my notes in red) Thank you for providing the transcript from Ben Shapiro discussing the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This is a complex and nuanced legal issue, so I'll do my best to summarize the key points and implications as objectively as possible. Key takeaways from the Supreme Court decision, based on Shapiro's explanation: The Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office that fall within their core constitutional powers and duties. This would cover things like directing the military, conducting foreign policy, pardoning people, etc. This sounds a lot to me like droning Muslims and murdering maids who are a threat to America. For a president's other official actions outside those core duties, they have presumptive immunity at this stage of legal proceedings. This presumptive immunity could potentially be overcome if prosecutors can show that criminally charging the president for those acts would not impede the functioning of the executive branch. So if a prosecutor can show a maid is not a threat to America, then he could be prosecuted? What if he just has a hunch, you know, and he needs to act fast, and then later finds out his intel was bad? For a president's unofficial actions unrelated to their duties (e.g. personal conduct), they do not have any special immunity and can face criminal charges like any citizen. What if grabbing a maid by the pussy is official presidential business? The Court remanded (sent back) Trump's specific case to lower courts to determine which of his alleged actions fall into which of the above immunity categories. Some charges were dismissed outright, while others will be evaluated by the lower courts. The decision sets a new legal precedent and framework around presidential immunity, but did not rule that presidents have boundless immunity for anything they do in office, despite some of the political spin. In terms of practical implications: This will likely stretch out the timeline of any potential criminal charges against Trump beyond the 2024 election. It restricts which actions taken by a president can be criminally prosecuted after leaving office but does not eliminate that possibility entirely. Much depends on how lower courts apply this framework to Trump's case and future cases involving alleged presidential misconduct. Both sides are putting political spins on the implications, with critics claiming it puts the president above the law, and supporters claiming it's a measured approach to protecting executive powers. I would encourage looking at analyses from left-leaning legal scholars as well to get a balanced perspective.

All Christians are immune from sin. This is now part of the American legislature. Jesus died to give us all immunity. This is wisdom. The ten commandments and bible stories are more like guidelines. "Commandment" is a strong word. Praise Jesus. 🙏

In Zimbabwe, after Robert Mugabe came to power in 1980 and changed the constitution to grant politicians immunity, he enlisted a North Korean-trained militia, the Fifth Brigade, to suppress opposition in the Matabeleland and Midlands provinces. This military campaign, known as Gukurahundi, rapidly swept through his opponents' key territories, killing an estimated 20,000-80,000 people in brutal massacres between 1983 and 1987. My maid (who was, for all intents and purposes, a surrogate mother to me) witnessed her husband and the men in her village having their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths before being burned to death with car tyres filled with gasoline hung around their necks. She was raped soon after and fell pregnant with a kid who grew up on my parents farm. Some Christian fundamentalists have expressed a desire for similar violence against those they see as deviating from their beliefs. There are videos of them frothing at the mouth and advocating for public executions. Today. Now. In your neighborhood. But I wouldn't worry too much; I have faith that the good Christian people of the US will recognise the wisdom of the line; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's just wise to be aware that this sort of thing can happen when a power-hungry, malignant narcissist can't take an L like a man and resorts to throwing their toys out of the cot.

@Davino basic Brontë , and Austen-tatious

Me no do weakness

The self-sustaining core of power Get key supporters Control treasure - understand how it's raised and used to hold a country together Minimize key supporters Notes: In a democracy, when a new source of treasure is discovered *cough* *AI* that dwarves the productivity of a nation's citizens, the odds of coup d'état gamble change.

In response to the thoughtful discussion above, I'd like to share some of my own experiences and reflections on the challenges of making and maintaining friendships in the modern world. Having moved between countries multiple times throughout my life, I've often struggled to find my bearings culturally and establish a sense of belonging within platonic friend groups. In our increasingly globalized and connected world, traditional cultural norms and systems for forming friendships may not always apply or be readily accessible, leaving many of us feeling adrift and uncertain about how to navigate the social landscape. Moreover, so much of human relating is based on survival drives, which can lead us to judge and categorize others based on their perceived value or usefulness. This tendency can create a sense of dehumanization and hinder the formation of genuine connections, as we find ourselves increasingly siloed into different cliques or groups based on superficial criteria rather than shared values and interests. We are social animals who have architected our lives to be lonely through technology, social media, remote work, and other modern developments that separate our social lives from our survival. Another factor that can make forming friendships challenging is the pervasive narrative of "success" that has dominated recent generations. The societal pressure to achieve certain milestones, such as securing a job, buying a house, or starting a family, can leave people feeling unworthy of friendship if they haven't met these expectations. This focus on external markers of success can lead to a vicious cycle where individuals feel too embarrassed or inadequate to seek out connections, further exacerbating their sense of isolation and hindering personal growth. The irony here is that nobody truly achieves "success" even as it's defined in current contexts on their own. I thought this snip from a discussion between Simon Sinek and diary of a CEO eloquently captured this paradox: To break free from this stalemate, I believe we need to challenge these narratives and prioritize friendship and personal connections as essential components of a fulfilling life, regardless of one's perceived "success" in other areas. By placing a higher value on platonic relationships and creating opportunities for genuine connection, we can foster a sense of belonging, encouragement, and support that enables us to navigate life's challenges and thrive. Strong, supportive friendships can provide a safe space for personal growth and motivation, helping us to break free from feelings of disconnection and stagnation. By actively working to cultivate authentic connections based on shared values and interests, we can build meaningful friendships that sustain us through the ups and downs of life, even in the face of societal pressures and changing cultural landscapes. There is an entire industry to help people become better leaders and maintain romantic relationships, but precious little guidance on how to be better friends. We have lost the skill of making friends as adults, with many people, especially young men, struggling with the basics of forming friendships. Acts of service and doing things for others are the key to being a good friend, but this is a muscle we have let atrophy in the modern world. Ultimately, the challenges of making and maintaining friendships in the modern world are complex and multifaceted, shaped by a range of cultural, societal, and personal factors. The rise of hyper-individualism and "hustle culture" driven by late-stage capitalism has de-prioritized relationships and architected our lives for disconnection and loneliness. Having close friendships is one of the best "biohacks" for the mental health issues that are increasing as a result. By acknowledging these challenges and consciously prioritizing the value of platonic relationships, we can create a more fulfilling and connected existence for ourselves and those around us.