Some people remain remarkably energetic and sharp into old age. Others probably just aren’t doing that much.

Yup, but he’s not a better option than another democratic candidate under the age of 80.

“No one” is an exaggeration.

What are you supposed to do with that though? Assume every single one is the next Hitler? People become numb to those accusations and, when you get someone at Hitler levels of danger, people will think it’s just more hyperbole.

Reminds me of Canada.

Should’ve gone to minidisc.

He’s not going to say anything other than that publicly unless he has 100% made up his mind to drop out.

The fact that a celebrity is the victim of a crime does not inevitably result in lawyers lining to defend the accused. And at this point, that is all that’s known.

I don’t see anything in the facts as reported to suggest that a high-profile lawyer could “turn this inside out” to a greater extent than any other random case.

The texts you cite at the end don’t seem metaphorical, they seem fictional. You should do some research (outside the Qur’an) on the intellectual capabilities of hippoes and ants.

How can that be when Biden is not even formally the nominee yet?

I suspect you’re asking this question because you’re investigating the truth of Christianity. I’d just caution that the bulk of the evidence we have for people close to Jesus having seen him after his death consists of the claims found in certain texts in the New Testament (I think that’s fairly uncontroversial). So you might want to first ask what the best explanation for those texts making those claims is. If you decide that the best explanation is that those people existed and did actually have experiences of seeing what they believed was the post-resurrection Jesus, then you might move to asking how to explain their having had those experiences.

I wouldn’t characterize the Bible as a whole as a story. Otherwise I agree very much with that paragraph.

Why? Your reason about lawyers applies to every single criminal case. Most don’t go to trial.

🤷 Snark all you want, you’re just providing reasons you disagree with the decision. People disagree with courts over many decisions. Doesn’t make those decisions illegitimate.

Everything you are saying goes to the correctness of the decision rather than its legitimacy.

I don’t see anything about the process by which the decision was made that makes it illegitimate. You just feel very strongly that it’s wrong. And yes, you have your reasons. The justices also have their reasons, and they were the ones nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to make these decisions.

I’m imagining the infomercial along the lines of the one for Trump Steaks.

I am aware of both Project 2025 and the recent SCOTUS decisions. Neither leads to the conclusion that death camps are on the agenda.

I don’t doubt Trump would do lots of shitty things, and I’m completely in favour of vigorously opposing him and his agenda. But not every aspiring authoritarian leader is the next Hitler.

Not sure why you are so confident there will be a trial. Most criminal cases resolve without one (at least in North America, I suspect the same is true in Germany). The more likely outcome is that they confess in exchange for a more lenient sentence, making it unnecessary to introduce the photos in open court.

Trump is undoubtedly a nut with authoritarian ambitions, but there is no reason to believe that he will be setting up “death camps”. You need to take some deep breaths and get some perspective.

Yeah…it’s hard to see it just going back to the way it was at this point.

The photos don’t seem to be a part of any trial as of yet, so they’re not public record. Has anyone even been arrested?

While people’s media literacy isn’t great, it is interesting that Clyburn entertained the hypothetical rather than just shutting it down. He could’ve just refused on the basis that Joe Biden is going to be the nominee.

If people are willing to just disobey the law en masse, the Supreme Court decision doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

You are not following. The fact that the President cannot be prosecuted for a criminal act is not the same as everyone being required to respect the efficacy of illegal acts done (or orders given) by the President.