Nah lol it's a name I chose donkey's years ago, when I was naive and didn't know about the drug reference. I wanted a username that was somewhat non-descript and like a 90's hacker name.
Never tried meth, never will.
In any case, do you actually have a point that's on topic to the discussion? Or are you just hoping your ad hominem attack will lead to people jerking you off in a circle?
Lol lemmy.world is a u/spez run reddit wannabe, apparently. There doesn't seem to be much real integrity there.
I feel like most of the mods on c/vegan understand that, which is why their accounts are with other instances.
However, going to hexbear and .ml are probably mistakes. That's a step down from .world, there are better instances out there. Hint hint.
Wait, spiderman has a pizza theme??
Lol, so it does. Technically not a Spiderman tune, but the Accelerando is probably unique to Spoiderman.
Also I swear part of that tune was ripped off and used in Mario 7 Stars, in one of the cloud areas maybe.
All you have to do is look at the interviews they do with Kamala or Biden (the very few of them they’ve done) and then listen to the interviews they do with Trump or just about any Republican really. It’s more than obvious.
If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to link to such an interview. Ideally, we should have two interviews from the same interviewer, one for either side, then we can determine the bias of that interviewer. Determining bias of the network would require much more evidence.
every now and then they’ll ask Kamala a tough question, but then she’ll give a completely false answer and they just move on to the next one.
Trump lies with almost every breath and gets away without fact checking against the vast majority of it. You claim Kamala does this also, but your only example so far has been one where the very network you claim is biased towards her in fact corrected her, at that very moment. They followed up on that. That's what you said, now you're trying to claim that they don't follow up on her gaffes.
Perhaps it's a flaw with interviewing in general, because interviewers for sure don't fact check Trump very much. The fact checking comes after the fact, by other parties. However you can only be biased if you think Trump is fact checked more than Kamala, proportional to the amount of lies either of them make.
The fact is she makes fewer gaffes, that's why it seems like they follow up less - there's less to follow up on, and what is followed up on is usually less substantial. Meanwhile Trump lies all the time, and it becomes so tiresome trying to correct every word he says that most get overlooked, and can only be picked apart by in depth breakdowns that most people don't have the time to watch.
If Trump claimed he retired from the military under a rank that he didn’t have, you’d never hear the end of it. Tampon Tim does it and they actively defend him.
Tampon Tim, lmao, your mask is slipping and you're revealing how much kool-aid you've drank.
No one is comparing Tim to Trump. People are comparing Tim to Vance. Vice President nominee to Vice President nominee. JD Vance himself tried to dismiss Waltz's 24 years' service in the National Guard because he didn't see combat, while ignoring the fact that Vance was in a PR department of the marines - for far less time - and also did not see combat. Vance's military career was purely about getting a line on his resume, while you don't serve for 24 years without some genuine patriotism. Walz suffered hearing damage from firing artillery, meanwhile Vance can't even claim he developed carpal tunnel syndrome from his military service.
You also cannot genuinely claim that Walz's military career is glossed over. No one has challenged Vance's career up until now, while Walz has faced these accusations and won in spite of them time and time again since 2006. The reason he wins in spite of the accusations is because the accusations are vexatious.
The argument over Walz's rank is semantic. He was promoted, it's just that the promotion was conditional on him completing certain training after the promotion, which he never completed. Similarly, Donald Trump was indicted twice while President, it's just that his party's Senate elected not to actually remove him from the office of President. Walz was still promoted to that rank, and Donald Trump was still indicted twice. Walz was essentially offered a job that he eventually did not take up, meanwhile Trump committed crimes but went unpunished.
Biden was the first to actually use photos he had taken in section 60 in a campaign ad
Biden had his photo taken while performing his duties as then-Vice President. He later re-used that photo in an election campaign. The photo was taken in 2010, then he used it in 2020.
Trump brought media with him to take photos during his election campaign for the purpose of using those photos in his election campaign.
The rules are clear, you're not allowed to do take photos for the purpose of election campaigning. Biden did not break that rule, he didn't even arrange the photo. You're free to take photos so long as it isn't for the purpose of election campaigning.
In spite of not breaking the letter of rule, I would agree that Biden violated the spirit of the rule. However, Biden is not running for President now, Trump is, and Trump's gaffe happened well after he had dropped out. Trump's getting desperate, and he's making bigger and bigger mistakes.
You also cannot say that Biden was at fault and disrespected the military without admitting that Trump disrespected the military.
Ultimately, it feels like talking to you is pretty pointless. You stubbornly refuse to concede anything, no matter how minor, chasing some proverbial "win". You've chosen to follow your favourite fiction, rather than embrace a search for objective truth. Frankly, I believe that clinging to ignorance, in spite of evidence to the contrary, is the greatest sin a human being can commit. It brings shame to your ancestors, to the good men and women who sacrificed their lives for you to live in relative comfort.
Trump secured three pay raises for our troops and their families including the largest pay raise in over a decade.
Basic pay for the military did increase by 2.4 percent on Jan. 1, 2018 — the largest in eight years. But pay increases are determined by a statutory formula, and Trump in fact requested an amount below the automatic adjustment for 2018. Congress overrode the president’s proposal, and Trump ultimately agreed to fully fund the increase as determined by federal law.
Trump didn't secure the pay raise, he wanted to pay them less but was overruled. The other pay raises were also mandatory.
The increase under Trump was also only 2.4%, and the most in 8 years (not "over a decade"). Meanwhile the increase under Biden was 5.2%, the most in decades, plural, more than 20 years.
He rebuilt the military after 8 years of neglect under the previous administration with over $2.2 trillion in defense spending, including $738 billion for 2020.
Spending in defense =/= good for servicemen and veterans. The vast majority of military spending does not go to personnel.
He created the space force as well which was the first new branch of the United States Armed Forces since 1947.
Splintering the USAF off and creating the Space Force arguably does not help the country. For one, the organisations' mandates and domains are so similar that the difference does not provide benefit (NASA covers both aeronautics and space, for good reason). Second, this makes it easier for enemies of the US to determine how much is being inveseted in space activities through separate public disclosures, making it harder for the US to maintain its military lead.
He vetoed the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act, which failed to protect our national security, disrespected the history of our veterans and military, and contradicted our efforts to put America first.
Trump vetoed a bill that had an overwhelming bipartisan majority behind it, knowing full well that his veto would be overruled. That's not a real veto, that's just for show, just to give him something to complain about on social media. The veto was also an attempt to halt funding to federal agencies, a common tactic of the Republican party, and one that hurts actual service members requiring them to continue working without pay.
He protected America’s defense-industrial base, directing the first whole-of-government assessment of our manufacturing and defense supply chains since the 1950s.
Trump also stole classified documents and leaked them to Russia. Him running an "assessment" of US defense supply chains is more about him providing intel to foreign adversaries.
He also helped our Veterans out by giving them the ability to go to whatever doctor they want to go to so they would no longer have to wait so long that some of them were dying to be seen at the VA.
He helped the US healthcare industry by giving them more customers and overruled the VA's pricing system, such that the taxpayer pays more to exploitative corporations.
And I believe that he would have done much more for our military if he wasn’t being held down by all of phony Russia collusion nonsense.
HAH. Trump has always been in bed with Russia, this has been public knowledge since the 80s. His young girl talent agencies were involved with Russian human trafficking.
You've got your head buried in the sand. Trump would rather gut and gimp the military so the US can roll over for Russia.
Because of enshittification lol
It looks like you haven't really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
Sure, but we're talking about Brazil. You haven't established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we're talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn't really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
The EU at its top level creates "Directives"
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn't an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-
To summarise:
Like I say, it really feels like you didn't read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you'd just made those statements without the veil, or if you'd followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don't think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn't have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
I wonder if he's levelled out now that he's finally old enough to drink?
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn't call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
So we can reasonably assume they were alive until the IDF ramped things up in both Gaza and the West Bank.