Search Results: all we do is argue

TL;DR At the bottom.

Don't get me wrong, I've met TONS of stupid people in real life. But people online seem to be on a whole nother level.

Like when people in real life don't like me they'll just say they don't like me/insult me/tell me to fuck off/whatever and move on quickly. That or they'll just ignore me or avoid me. But people online will write multiple spaced paragraphs about how much they hate me and how much of a piece of shit they think I am and how much better they are than me.

I've also seen like guys online who don't even wipe their ass after taking a shit because they think that "it's gay to touch their butt." No one I met in real life has had this mindset, even the stupidest person I ever met in real life.

In some cases you could say people are joking, but in other cases they're not. Like if a person says an absurd thing once, they could be joking. But when they start getting super defensive and spend hours having back and forths with people online and possibly even making death threats, then I don't think they're joking anymore.

People online also seem to be extremely cruel. Like I remember some people online saying stuff like "I don't give a shit if children are raped because I hate children anyway, so fuck them. Child molestors are doing society a favor, people need to stop having kids. The younger generations are all a bunch of pussies and snowflakes and we don't need any more of them." And when people called them out they spent hours arguing back and forth. No one I met in real life is this psychotic.

So yeah... I've met stupid people in real life, but people online, holy shit...

TL;DR From my personal experience, no, people in real life aren't as stupid as people online. I've known a lot of dumb motherfuckers in real life too, don't get me wrong, but people online are on a whole nother level.

To say there is no problem with heavy drugs in America and most of Europe would be a denial of reality. You have fentanyl killing a record high number of Americans and in decriminalized areas like The Netherlands you see the degragading effects on society with homelessness and needles laying around the parks and on the streets. You also see this on the west coast and other places in America.

Then you have places like Singapore where the drug problem seems relatively controlled if you're willing to stomach it when it's your loved one who gets the long sentence or hanged if they happen to be caught drug smuggling. Seems like many of the ones who end up being executed are people from the west and from the perspective of the native of these countries the harsh penalties are not so difficult to bare, especially when the lawbreakers come to your country and add to the problem for residents to bare when the punishments are well known to those willing to risk it. No amount of money could possibly be worth dying over. A person might find these penalties to be distasteful or even amoral, admittedly while I do not fall into this camp I at least have sympathy towards that way of thinking.

Well these people might say that penalties and the payoff are rarely considered by the people who end up being caught, at least not before the crime is committed. They'd argue other reasons find them in this nightmarish situation of being caught and finding yourself facing a death sentence for doing something that in the west might not result in more jail time than a year with a good attorney. Or possibly none at all.

It almost seems too fantastical to imagine a livable place where people are allowed the freedom to decide whether to do or not do the drugs in a society where people practice a true form of freedom. Consequences for using such things would be the effects of the drugs themselves which can far outweigh any other considerations.

In my personal opinion, I think the answer is blatantly no. That’s not to put women down but it’s just saying it how it is. Women graduate far more than men and still, all the richest women in the world got their from marriage or divorce. I would argue women have more opportunity than men and are favoured, even though they don’t build the entire world.

President-elect Donald Trump has called for MAGA Senate to allow recess appointments as they elect a new majority leader. Here's what this means:

Recess Appointments

A recess appointment is a temporary appointment made by the president to fill a federal position when the Senate is in recess. This power allows the president to bypass the normal Senate confirmation process for certain appointments.

Key points:

Recess appointments are temporary, expiring at the end of the next Senate session.

They can last up to almost two years if made early in a Senate session.

SCOTUS has ruled that the Senate must be in recess at least 10 days for recess appointments to be valid.

Trump's Demands

Trump argues that w/o recess appointments, his nominees won't be confirmed in a timely manner. He's demanding that any of the 3 candidate for Senate majority leader agree to allow recess appointments.

This request is controversial because:

It bypasses the Senate's constitutional role in confirming nominees.

It could allow the installation of potentially unqualified appointees.

It will weaken the system of checks and balances.

Senate Response

All 3 candidates for MAGA Senate leader (John Thune, John Cornyn, and Rick Scott) expressed support for Trump's demand. However, this stance could face opposition from other Senators concerned about preserving the Senate's constitutional role.

Recent decline:

Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden had used recess appointments as of 2020, following a 2014 Supreme Court decision that limited the power.

Supreme Court ruling:

In 2014, the Supreme Court held that the President may ONLY use the recess appointment power during recesses of 10 days or longer, except in very unusual circumstances.

Overall, while recess appointments were once a common practice, their use has become more controversial and limited in recent years due to changes in congressional schedules and legal rulings.