Sure, but we freely traded with each other.

No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, the ‘flow’ or ‘Invisible Hand’ or ‘tides of history’ or ‘profit incentive’ or ‘doing what comes naturally’ or ‘spontaneity’ will carry society inexorably closer to the pure agora.

What show, America?

Majority of white women voted for Trump. Abusive relationship no doubt, but she was probably into it.

How is it a rewrite?

Ie; Even though their previous position of ‘free speech absolutist’ before was daft, at least you could trick yourself into thinking it was principled. The meme just highlights the hypocrisy in a format that’ll be palatable to them - more likely to get through to someone if you say they’ve lost their values vs never having them.

Check the author ;)

Description I was replying to here said former politician, thanks for sharing though

Hollywood producer: Harvey Weinstein (photographed with Epstein/Maxwell)

Royal prince: Prince Andrew (named in 2024 docs, Giuffre accusations, settled 2022)

Music industry figure: Michael Jackson (in 2024 docs, met at Epstein’s home, died 2009)

Prominent banker: Jes Staley (former Barclays CEO, close Epstein ties, fined 2023)

Government official: Bill Richardson (former NM Governor, Giuffre accusation, died 2023)

Former politician: Bill Clinton (in 2024 docs, flew on Epstein’s plane, denies crimes)

Italian car company owner: Piero Ferrari (Ferrari vice chairman, speculative via elite ties)

Rock star: Chris Evans or Mick Jagger (flight logs, rumored island visits)

Magician: David Copperfield (in 2024 docs, Sjoberg testimony, 2007 FBI probe)

Six billionaires: Les Wexner, Leon Black, Glenn Dubin, Tom Pritzker, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates (all in docs, deny wrongdoing)

Canadian billionaire: Frank Giustra (in docs, flight logs, Clinton Foundation donor)

It’s David Copperfield I believe.

Thanks to Cunt Jr for the idea

There’s no evidence there was a Nazi parliamentary groups committing mass murder. Which is why the UN court ordered Russia to halt its invasion and did not accept genocide claims against Ukraine when Russia used that narrative as a pretext.

The war in Donbas began in 2014, long before the 2022 invasion, and by 31 December 2021 about 14,200 to 14,400 people had been killed, including at least 3,404 civilians; most civilian harm came in 2014 to 2015 and fell sharply after the Minsk ceasefire periods.

Some Ukrainian volunteer units with far right members existed, most notably Azov and Aidar; credible groups documented serious abuses by certain fighters from these units in 2014, and they urged Kyiv to investigate and bring them under firm command. Those findings support claims of abuses, not a claim of large scale Nazi formations carrying out mass murder

Kyiv moved to integrate volunteer battalions into formal structures and to prosecute rogues such as the Tornado unit; this shows problems were real, and also shows state action against them rather than official sponsorship of systematic killing of civilians.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49344563

Here it’s just a months rent for security deposit and you pay as normal in a rolling monthly contract. The deposit needs to be held in an independent thingie too so they can’t keep it unlawfully.

Application fees? For renting? Man America is cooked.

Videos of him saying enigma on his campaign trail so it is in his vocabulary.

It could also be a cryptic anagram he picked up from Epstein for Gamines.

Irish / Celtic population is known for being curly too

That’s what capitalism is.

Anarchists still believe in trade.

Sir 48% of voters approve of trumps actions so far. Those red state AGs will be championed for selectively applying the constitution as Trump sees fit. I’d expect prayer in schools and banning of protest will be the first to go.

? I didn’t. I repeated the same thing I’ve been saying for the past 5 comments and the dissenting opinion from Jackson. Even the site you linked me says it applies as I’ve stated so wtf are you talking about? Are you a bad AI?

The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.

It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions

Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.

Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.

Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.

It affects all nationwide injunctions not just this one.

This ruling changes when and how lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions for any future case.

Courts can still block federal policies - but now they must limit injunctions to the actual plaintiffs or a certified class.

Those articles say it does apply to nationwide injunctions in general so Wdym?

The court decided that nationwide injunctions, or court orders that prevent the government from enforcing a specific law or policy, are unconstitutional.

You’re assuming the midterms will save you but that assumes he won the election fairly. Which he didn’t based on the suppression tactics he down alone; before you get to the dodgy voting patterns and gerrymandering.