When someone asks what’s a dead give away someone is a kid, it tells me they’re not old enough to remember the ASL days.

the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.

Are you joking?

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

Also,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers

Right here is where she’s losing me. It’s The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.

Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they’re “core” official acts or “perimeter” official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there’s no way Trump is getting away with everything.

POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.

I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.

In the sense that the Constitution is above the law, yes.

The president is not obligated with protecting elections so that should not fall within absolute immunity. At best, the president appoints election-related officials and may pressure them to do something about an election, But acting unilaterally is not something a president is supposed to do. (In my opinion)

As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There’s a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.

So, from what I’m reading, this ruling hasn’t really changed very much. In fact, it seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.

Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what “official acts” are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.

So, it’s up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.

In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.

I would encourage you to read the first couple paragraphs of this article so you are informed of your misunderstanding.

So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?

And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?

Deleting my apparently wrong comment. Pft.

The country was founded in large part as a nation for those escaping oppression and persecution for their beliefs. It was designed to provide everyone certain freedoms the founders claimed to be inalienable.

While this is still an immensely powerful idea, it can not function without guidelines and government involvement.

Two hundred fifty years ago, it made sense for sparsely populated states to operate mostly independent of the federal government. In time, land became more dense and borders dividing populations and cultures and commerce blurred. Now, the entire world is instantly connected.

Somehow, generation after generation, it was not self-evident that all people should be treated equally. The police force and prison system still largely resemble what they were initially intended to do - serve the wealthy and enslave people for profit.

The United States affords everyone the same freedoms and opportunities by way of doing nothing at all. Everyone has the opportunity to work hard and make a fair living for themselves. But some people win the genetic lottery and inherit extra opportunities and extra freedoms.

We all have the freedom to be complete idiots and that’s considered a win.

Our constitution needs to be re-written. In my opinion, it needs to be explicit about what all the citizens of the United States should be afforded: education, health care, clean air and water, shelter, the right to not be lied to by the people who draft and pass legislation impacting our lives, the right to a source of information that’s not subject to special interests.

No. I can’t say I like it. I don’t like how our government is intent on making our lives worse by their inaction. They take more and more of our money while we get less and less in benefits.

We have no leadership. We have influencers and celebrities. Some people complain about globalism because they know we can’t compete on a global scale. People are prejudice of foreigners who take their jobs because they’re complacent with doing as little as possible. Our most successful form of entertainment is ragebait. Who’s helping us progress as a country? Who’s helping to make us smarter and healthier and happier? Who exactly is promoting general welfare and domestic tranquility?

It’s the land of the me and home of maybe. And our constitution supports your freedom to be this way. Some people love that and claim the freedom to do nothing is what makes America great.

A great America, to me, is one built for everyone to prosper, that promotes self-worth and civil respect, that strictly enforces the idea that my freedoms can not be infringed upon by you freedoms or beliefs. A great America is one that doesn’t have elections where you have to vote for the person you dislike the least. Politics should be positively engaging. We should give a damn about our leaders and they should have to deal with consequences of their actions, like anyone else.

Though it’s not perfect, the one thing I really love about America is our immigration policy. It’s the best place on the planet for people to escape for a better life. Our country is built by and thrives because of immigrants. It’s the one thing that has held true for hundreds of years. How we treat immigrants is a sin. How our government fails to properly fund our immigration system is appalling. I believe most people are in support of legal immigration yet they fail to support proper funding of our immigration department. It wreaks of racism and bigotry.

America is, by design, the land of the self-righteous. The only people in favor of that are the self-righteous.

people haven’t been taking politics seriously and have elected unserious people.

This is the inherent flaw. We have a representative government that never intended “people” to take politics seriously. Politics was for the landowners.

An excuse not to interact with people.
“Sorry, my notifications were off while I was busy yesterday and didn’t have a chance to check it”.

That is not a healthy response to reading something on the internet. Hope you can find some peace in your life.

I think a lot of the existing higher prices are largely due to grocery store mega corps price gouging. Smaller markets are more flexible (while paying their staff living wages). Famers markets are still an obscene value. I filled up two bags with produce the other week for $30. Granted, ten years ago that would have been $20.

Also, no one seems to mention the increased prevalence of paying with a card. Every transaction paid with credit or debit is hit with a 2-3% charge from Visa or the POS supplier. Now that so few people are paying with cash, all stores are increasing their prices to cover those costs.

Food inflation was just below 2% before the pandemic and has been just below 3% since last fall (which is roughly double normal food inflation) https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/food-inflation-in-the-united-states/ This article is grossly outdated and the claim of “skyrocketing (meaning, actively increasing) food prices” is flat out wrong.

Quotes from the linked article and this one…

Grimes sees another factor driving up consumers’ perception of higher grocery prices. “What has happened over time is that the quality of food has gone up”. In other words, America’s tastes are too damn high.

According to the study, many are changing their food shopping habits. About 37% say they are now shopping at discount grocers versus big-name supermarkets. About one-quarter of respondents (26%) say they are buying less healthy food for themselves and their families because it is what they can afford.

I’d love to know how many shoppers are continuing to buy processed foods versus learning to cook from produce and proteins. Or how many have started sourcing produce from farmers markets.

Nothing but (arguably) the love for your family should come before properly feeding yourself. It’s food. It’s what we need to survive. Everyone should know how to make a healthy meal from real, cheap, local, seasonal ingredients. I know that’s hard for a lot of people (including my own family) but it should be the case. I can not comprehend people saying they’re buying “less healthy food” to save money. Healthy food is cheap AF - as long as you know how to cook it. I just spent $65 at a fancy produce market in a major city to feed myself for the week.

I’m not arguing that prices aren’t up. But they aren’t still as high as during the pandemic and they certainly are not skyrocketing. It just drives me mad when I see people not taking feeding themselves seriously and then go and blame the government.

I would have thought “Food & Wine” would have at least offered some suggestions or links to “Cheap Weeknight Dinners” or “How to Grocery Shop When You’re Broke” to help people struggling.

My initial reason for not having kids was financial. I think a lot of people have learned it may be better to have children later in life when you can properly care for them. I know many people who’ve had their first child in their late-30s and early-40s. My aunt had her first child in her fifties. That’s not something that was common before modern medicine.

I have always had the idea that I would have a kid if and when I met the right person to share parenting with. That hasn’t happened so I’ve had to put some thought into my priorities. It’s not fair to have a child just because it’s what society says you should do or just because you want someone to take care of you when you’re old. It’s so much more than that and I think people should be more mindful of the responsibilities and long term repercussions.

I offered two reasons I personally may regret not having children. I could list several others such as the pure joy of watching them grow into adults and mimic you and your partner. If you want to say that’s selfish, to bring another human into the word to experience a universe of emotion you’d otherwise never experience, I understand that perspective. No argument.

But then I offered that choosing to prioritize your own life is in and of itself a selfish act. It’s more explicitly about you than it is about another person.

Would you disagree that going out to eat by yourself is more of a selfish act than inviting a friend to eat out with you? Sharing an experience is less selfish, no?

That argument makes sense. Though I see it more from choosing to prioritize yourself and own self interests over having children and sharing a life with them as selfish too. I guess we’re all selfish one way or another.

I’m not sure you’re going to get an objective answer to this as no one has lived a life of either having kids or not having kids, hungrythirstyhorny.

I will say that, as a single male in his mid forties who has observed a good amount of life; first, the thought of not having people to rely on in you’re old age is a little worrisome; and two, not having had someone to pass my knowledge and skills down to is a little sad. However, I really enjoy the freedom and opportunities my life (and bank account) affords me.

There is always a cost to freedom. Or, as Jonis Joplin put it - freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Choosing to not have children is a selfish act. Whether “selfish” is a bad thing or not is subjective.

I would offer that anyone who’s going through life without children, find some altruistic outlet to participate in. You can otherwise find yourself wondering what your legacy may be or what the point of your life has been - aka a mid-life crisis.