To drive her point home, as penance, she should immolate herself on the steps of the US House. Until she does that, ignore her like the liar she is.

Himmler.

As a reminder, the only people who conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism are raging anti-Semites. They hold the Hitlerian belief that to be Jewish is to owe allegiance from birth to Israel. They don’t believe Jews can truly be real Americans, or citizens of any country except Israel. Schumer believes in the old Nazi belief that Jews are, by nature of their birth, foreigners in every country except Israel. This is why they believe any criticism of Israel is an attack on Jews everywhere, because they believe that Jewish people cannot be truly American. They are always suspect. They’ll always have dual loyalty. Schumer is a raging anti-Semite.

It need not even be over permanently. Many nations have come together, broken apart, just to come back together again in the future. Look at how many times China has gone through that cycle. Look at German dissolution and reunification. I imagine some time apart would do the nation and its various political factions a lot of good. And probably in a generation or two, a movement would likely develop to try to bring things back together again. The idea of united America isn’t going anywhere. But our present form of government just isn’t what is needed to produce that unity. The Constitution is a collection of compromises meant to satisfy the needs of the 1780s. Perhaps in the 2080s, a new attempt can be made, a new set of compromises forged, and the nation rebuilt. If nothing else, an EU-style customs and open boarder union between the states would likely be implemented even from the time of first dissolution.

Look, I don’t know why you have such piss-poor critical thinking skills and a complete lack of any ability to read the voluminous coverage on the subject.

But the entire reason Trump wanted this ruling was because it would make it easier to trample people’s rights. Without national injunctions, your rights do not exist. This is especially true for immigration. The Trump admin is also fighting to be able to deport people without due process, and you’re already not entitled to representation during immigration procedures.

What portion of immigrants can afford a lawyer? If you’re a low-income US citizen, and Trump decides to revoke your citizenship, what exactly is your plan? Yes, you have citizenship from birth, but that doesn’t matter. Trump has decided to just fucking ignore the Constitution entirely. And yes, in theory, you can sue the admin in court, but good luck with that. If you can even afford a lawyer, by the time you find one, you’ll already be on a plane to Sudan.

How are you so dense that you can’t realize that the entire point of Trump pursuing this is that he wants to remove from people the ability to challenge his illegal actions? There’s literally no other reason to do this. If you live in the US, you have seen your own rights massively curtailed by this ruling. But you’re either too stupid to realize that, or you’re just happy that you’re not likely to be at the front of the line of people being fed into the meat grinder.

Don’t link to a massive ruling and tell people “just read it” you fucking goober.

No, I just don’t suffer fools.

New law. LLMs will only be accessible in very particular forms. Engaging with an LLM will be more like visiting the Oracle of Delphi. You’ll have to travel to some remote location and ask the LLM in person. It will then respond in riddles or vague prophecies that leave a lot open to interpretation. This will be the only legal way to use an LLM.

No, none of this is possible because it violates supremacy law in every way imaginable (unfortunately).

So? The Constitution is dead. Stop fellating its corpse.

We need to just ignore the Supreme Court entirely. They’re a fundamentally illegitimate institution. Their opinions are worth less than soiled toilet paper. Ignore them.

Then the solution is for the blue states to establish their own banking systems that the fed has no control or influence over. When a court tells the California bank to transfer money, they’ll just send that email to the trash folder.

No. Canada is a small country and can’t actually absorb the millions of people that acquiring US states would entail. California alone has a population similar to that of all of Canada. The US West Coast, if it joined Canada, would suddenly represent the majority of the Canadian population. Canada could absorb a single low population state, like Alaska. But asking Canadians to absorb large chunks of the US is asking them to make existing Canadians a political minority in their own country. Is doesn’t make sense. The US West Coast can simply be its own independent country.

Honestly, we need to dissolve the union at this point. It’s just common sense.

Look, it’s time for a reality check. When a nation’s political culture becomes this dysfunctional, there’s no bringing it back, not without some massive bloody civil war that leaves millions dead. What they don’t teach you in school is that every written law or constitution is ultimately meaningless. The Constitution does not enforce itself and neither does any law. They all require a certain amount of good-faith interpretation. It is always possible to come up with a strained bad-faith interpretation of any law that will allow you to do whatever you want. But in a healthy political system, this doesn’t happen. Both sides practice restraint and realize that their overreach will be answered by overreach on the other side.

But if you lose that? The nation is effectively shattered. The United States, as a functioning democracy, is already dead. It’s zombie corpse is just limping along. The president is openly defying the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt, openly partisan, and ignoring the plain language of the constitution. It’s all just might makes right now, and both parties view the other as fundamentally wicked and illegitimate.

Once your politics have decayed this much, there is no bringing it back. We need to peacefully dissolve the United States. Will it be easy? No. But we also shouldn’t let one of our core national character flaws - American exceptionalism, blind us to the possibilities that exist. Plenty of nations have peacefully dissolved before. And they find ways to negotiate the hard issues like dividing assets, debts, obligations, military forces, etc. This has been done before, and it can be done again.

When this comes up, the “umm aktually” crowd also comes out of the woodwork. They’ll point out that there’s no actual constitutional mechanism to do this. These people are blind or have been asleep the last six months. You would think they would learn by now that all it takes to do something is that there not be anyone there to stop you.

We should grant all 50 states full independence. Just disband the existing federal government entirely. Let the states then come back together in whatever new nation or nations they want to form. How can this be done legally? Simple. Someone just needs to run for president on the platform of national dissolution, saying, “I’ll grant all 50 states independence. I’ll fire every federal employee, and I will not use any military force to stop all the states from seceding.” And then they get elected and simply do that. Congress or SCOTUS can complain all they want; it won’t matter. That candidate if elected would have an overwhelming political mandate, and there would be no way to stop them. Some may whine that it’s unconstitutional, but who cares? It’s pretty obvious by now that the Constitution is broken, obsolete, and no longer worth respecting. We’re walking away from that broken obsolete piece of trash. We can do better.

And you don’t see the blindingly obvious problems with that, the issues that have been repeatedly pointed out in dozens of articles on the subject? I’m sorry, but you just aren’t operating in good faith. You’re either willfully ignoring those issues, or you are demanding others do your homework for you.

The final solution to lock picking!

Please explain your current understanding of the ruling in full before you ask others for lengthy explanations.

The rich aren’t accessible, but their property sure is awfully flammable.

It’s not enough to reform campaign finance. We need to destroy the class of people behind this. We need to really wage class war, a class war of annihilation.

We need a national wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Anything more is taxed at 100%.

It’s more that life itself almost evolves an entire planet to best benefit life itself. Or that when life on the planet as whole is threatened, life evolves to address the crisis. For example, in the caboniferous, trees evolved undigestable lignin, and this caused a misbalance in nature as forests grew and died with nothing to digest the dead trees. In time, organisms arose that could digest wood, and the balance was restored.

Here, the problem is greenhouse gas emissions. And meat consumption is one of the biggest drivers of meat consumption. So nature responds by making humans allergic to meat!

The Gaia hypothesis is quite out there because it ascribes a sort of collective will or intention to nature, rather than just the blind machinations of evolution.

deleted by creator

I just remove my upper layer of skin whenever it gets too hot.