Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
so, two rational conclusions here:
if he illegally fired you, you were not fired. show up to your job, sue when they don't pay you.
OR
laws are bullshit. grab a gun and find a nazi to point it at.
100%!
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently.
What you say is completely constitutional, but not legal. Laws are only here to maintain control, the constitution is more abstract.
I really don't vibe with the constitution being special. it's just some shit some assholes agreed on 250 years ago. doesn't even fully prohibit slavery.
Honestly, that’s fair. AFAIK the founding fathers were mostly capitalists and they made the rules to protect themselves.
That said, I think in the timeline of human history, we’re converging towards better governance and I think the US constitution is largely a step in the right direction.
But also it’s more abstract and if you look at it, it’s not that bad.
I’m not American thought.
The amended version prohibits involuntary servitude except for convicted criminals.
Laws are bullshit only for some people.
Which makes them bullshit, no?
I think they're saying that rich people are allowed to break the law.
goddamnit, i start getting hard when i read "rational conclusion" followed by a true statement. you earned my upvote.
This makes no sense unless he can't get his own people on the FTC or the FTC Republicans aren't amenable to his agenda. It's a bipartisan agency and the head leaving earlier left a spot open to swing the 5 person board to the Republicans.
I don't understand why the Fuhrer voted himself additional emergency powers, he should have as much power as he needs as chancellor of the reichstag?
Stop making sense. I want to go back to the 90s when such an idea was laughable.
While we cannot go back, what we can do is go forwards.
Why are you still expecting nuance? They're Democrats and haven't kissed his ass yet. That means they're on the chopping block.
Entirely possible with this asshole. And with more coffee on board it strikes me that making the FTC unable to function at all may be the goal.
okay, so, 'bipartisan' but the fiscal conservatives sided with the wild eyed fascists, because they always do that.
the thing is, there's a split there. the fiscal conservative oligarch wall street coke fiends know the FTC exists to create a perception of stability, making america an appealing place to invest, and put your money, so they get more money.
the wild eyed fascists are rabid frothing ideaologues who just need somebody to hate. right now that's 'the government'.
Trump Dum
guns