Soulg

joined 2 years ago
[–] Soulg 3 points 11 months ago

Except still kind of yes. To the majority of people, 11,000 days won't mean very much, but 30 years will immediately make it click.

[–] Soulg 4 points 11 months ago

That's...a huge exaggeration lol

[–] Soulg 1 points 11 months ago

They're middle aged and give off strong "peaked in high school" vibes, ESPECIALLY fred

[–] Soulg 2 points 11 months ago

It probably would have been incredible if it came earlier

[–] Soulg 3 points 11 months ago

It happens every single time the discussion of false rape accusations happen; hell even one of my close friends has the same experience and reacts the same way.

Any remote implication that an accused sexual assault perpetrator might not be guilty is just bombarded with stories like that, that their abuser wasn't found guilty and that by daring to accept the fact that sometimes it actually is false, we're directly attacking them and their experience.

[–] Soulg -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

complete bullshit.

The court of public opinion is a powerful thing, and there, you will always be assumed guilty. Even if acquitted in court, and even if the accuser admitted it was a lie, a lot of the time the only thing people will see when googling you (such as prospective employers as one example) will see the news of the accusation, and then stop looking further.

[–] Soulg -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah so the guy who spent 6 years in jail for doing nothing should just keep suffering because you suffered too?

I'm sorry for what you went through, nobody should ever need to, but that doesn't give you the right to demand random other people also suffer just to make you feel better. Their lives matter too.

[–] Soulg 50 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Not only is what you're saying obviously correct, but THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THE FUCKING AMENDMENT was asked about this exact lack of the word "president", and pointed to the officer line, and said that clearly included the president.

It's also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard's draft as "officer(s) of the United States," the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

"Why did you omit to exclude them?" asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine's Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

"Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'" Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/framers-14th-amendments-disqualification-clause-analysis/story?id=105996364

[–] Soulg 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Only one of the two parties actively campaigns on hurting people. It's not a difficult choice.

[–] Soulg 20 points 11 months ago (8 children)

The fuck are you talking about lol

[–] Soulg 13 points 11 months ago

Exploiting the poor people.

[–] Soulg 33 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Lots of people. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean nobody else does either.

view more: ‹ prev next ›