wtfwhateven

10 ms·

91.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
Their responses were unnerving and it's honestly frightening that anyone can be so deluded. They've lied multiple times about the contents of the ruling, they've repeatedly ignored your arguments and hallucinated you making a
92.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
>can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, How is this meant to happen if all the evidence for such crimes are inadmissible due to the ruling?
93.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
>No, this is illegal and prosecutable. This is a lie. The ruling made such a case unprosecutable as it made any possible evidence in such a case inadmissable. You've been told this multiple times but gloss over it for some reason. T
94.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
Because he's lying
95.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
It has zero convincing arguments. It describes itself as a "technofeudalist", anything it says should be immediately discarded. It proudly hates the constitution and freedom. Lying about the very mechanisms meant to stop tyrants (
96.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
It's not remotely accurate and all it does is demonstrate you have no understanding on how any of it works. See the other replies for an explanation. Oddly (and tellingly) you ignored them.
97.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
A president cannot overturn it. I think they meant that the moment the next democrat president does something red states find unpopular this ruling will be overturned by the very same justices who agreed with it in the first place. Which is
98.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
Informed consent is absolutely medicine and absolutely includes advice from a doctor
99.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
Where on earth are you getting this idea from?
100.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
"a legal right to access" sounds very partisan of you. That issue is still being litigated, as you know. Your willingness to ignore that fact that and portray whether or not "DOGE" has the right to access all the data is
101.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
What part of unclassified did you not understand?
102.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment? How were any of those things implied?
103.
by wtfwhateven 1y ago
>And nobody said that Tesla shouldn't be able to fire someone if it disagrees with what its employee said or did. You explicitly did this earlier, actually: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43747971
104.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
"Conspiracy theory" implies it's untrue: https://www.project2025.observer/ Also https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term and many other instances
105.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
>Mainstream evangelical Christianity doesn't believe anything like what you describe. This is not true.
106.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
>Any links that point to U.S. transgressions under presidents other than orange man are downvoted. Not true.
107.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
What calculator is that?
108.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Source?
109.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
I accept your concession. FWIW I've heard that people have had their ability to flag removed after abusing it the way you have.
110.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
>have almost zero chance of succeeding I don't think this is the case anymore, I hope I'm wrong.
111.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Sadly they're already coming after judges: https://www.axios.com/2025/02/16/impeachment-judges-republic...
112.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
No it's not.
113.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins for the curious
114.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Why would they be prosecuted? The FBI has been gutted and they'd just be pardoned
115.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Wishing to remain anonymous is not "kid tactics" Trying to mock someone for the absolutely valid tactic of wanting to be anonymous due to the very real threat of life-ruining retaliation is extremely childish and short-sighted.
116.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Is making note of the fact that an individual was convicted of raping a child now the same as "accusing everyone of being some kind of Nazi or sexual predator"? Do you have some information that would lead to doubt on Arthur'
117.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
No, the headline makes it sound like someone paid for YouTube Premium which is repeatedly marketed as not having ads and is still being shown ads. Which is exactly what is happening.
118.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Where can I read more about Prada's other ventures into this sort of thing?
119.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Seems perfectly clarified to me.
120.
by wtfwhateven 2y ago
Nope. Not at all.

More ›