this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
223 points (91.8% liked)

Life Pro Tips

2637 readers
1 users here now

Unlocking the Secrets to Success and Fulfillment!

Rules

  1. Share valuable life pro tips.
  2. Keep it concise and clear.
  3. Stay on-topic.
  4. Respect fellow members.
  5. No self-promotion.
  6. Verify information before sharing.
  7. Avoid illegal or unethical advice.
  8. Report rule violations.

Join us and share your best life pro tips!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This LPT doesn’t violate the community rule against illegal advice because in this purely hypothetical scenario the law means nothing

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elephantium 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Four years ago the other party had the same

As noted elsewhere in the thread, this is blatantly untrue.

[–] givesomefucks -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As noted elsewhere in the thread,

That was you're own rambling unsourced interpretation...

And now you're acting like it's a source?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

6 3 split in the court is an established fact, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Their other statements were also accurate as far as I can tell.

Edit: Downvote all you like but you'll still be wrong lol

[–] alekwithak 4 points 1 week ago

You are correct, I was referring to the Dems having a majority across all three branches, the judicial branches being one of the big three I'm not sure how it could possibly be irrelevant 🙄

[–] givesomefucks -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because no one was talking about SC....

And if we are, then Biden should have expanded it after McTurtle stole Obama's last seat.

Like, you have to draw the line somewhere, don't claim that we also have to factor in the Reno County dog catcher now.

Moderates don't have it in them to fight fascism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

SCOTUS is irrelevant? Really???

Let's go ahead and ignore that absurd take.

How would he have the means to achieve that?

Edit: No explanation given, just drama and flouncing. Duly noted.

[–] givesomefucks -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Let’s go ahead and ignore that absurd take.

Why would anyone want to interact with someone acting like this?

It's a rhetorical question by the way, I'll never see your response or any other comments you ever make.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago
[–] alekwithak 3 points 1 week ago

You are incorrect, I was referring to the Dems having a majority across all three branches of government. The judicial branches being one of the big three I'm not sure how it could possibly be irrelevant 🙄