You get better insurance rates as a large business because you have more collateral and have a larger contract. If it gets the insurance company more net money to give you a lower rate per item insured, they want that extra bit of income. Rather, the person signing the deal wants that extra bit of commission on a large contract.

If what you’re insuring costs more than the contract value, they’ll 100% hike rates to make up for it.
They’re in the business of betting that they’ll make a lot of profit while you bet they’ll only make a little profit. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, they’ll always arrange the numbers so that their worst case scenario is minimal profit.

There’s no amount of money you can pay someone to lose money on a deal.

Don’t give him so much credit. Everything he does is credited as an intentional distraction from whatever it is that he just did.

The wording is specifically that you need to be qualified to hold the office of the president, not to run for the office.

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

With qualifications to hold the office being:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So the phrasing of the 22nd created an issue:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once

Elsewhere it talks about eligibility to hold office, but the 22nd only refers to election.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-22/overview-of-twenty-second-amendment-presidential-term-limits

There’s also a similar issue with the speaker of the house, where eligibility isn’t as clearly defined as one might expect.

While the intent of the law was clearly to codify the previous pattern of capping it at two terms (and being spiteful to FDR) it’s phrased with enough ambiguity that it’s clear how they’ll argue it.

Possibly not the greatest example. The whole “Japanese internment camps” thing, as well as the (radically less controversial) suspension of habeas corpus for Germans captured on US soil.

More that it normalizes a return to military expansion of national borders.
Russia is trying to grow their territory by annexing neighbors.
China would plainly like to.
The US didn’t, which made the scales tilt towards Russia acting badly and unusually badly.

With the shift, Russia is just the only one acting on a policy item that all the major powers have.

And like clockwork: https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-arctic-trump-greenland-2dbd00625c2c0c3bd94a2c96c7015b69

“Putin says US push for Greenland rooted in history, vows to uphold Russian interest in the Arctic”

Speaking at a policy forum in the Artic port of Murmansk, Putin noted that the United States first considered plans to win control over Greenland in the 19th century, and then offered to buy it from Denmark after World War II.

“It can look surprising only at first glance and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current U.S. administration,” Putin said. “It’s obvious that the United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”

The US and Greenland; Russia and Ukraine: it only matters that it’s rooted in history, right?

“this is the fault of the democrats and Joe Biden. If they hadn’t messed everything up we wouldn’t need to fix it like this”.

They’ll say that and their constituents will listen. Remember, these are people who voted for the guy who wrecked the economy over the guy who made progress improving it because the economy was bad and they wanted it to be better, like what the first guy wrecked.

How’d that work out for Poland?

It’s unfortunate, but an aggressive shitty neighbor is your problem, even if you don’t want to deal with them.

Wow, way to bury the lede article.
“Which should we emphasize: protestors with signs, or supporters of the thing trying to kill them?”.

Clearly the existence of protestors is the most important thing about this story.

No, the supreme Court ruled that the individual who is the president has immunity for actions taken in a presidential capacity. Absolute immunity for exercising presidential powers, and and presumptive for actions taken as the president, pending the prosecutions ability to argue that holding the individual personally liable couldn’t possibly infringe of their exercise of constitutional powers, and they have to make that case without referring to intent.

The specific case was about when trump, as president, contacted Governors and law enforcement to try to convince them to overturn the election for him. Under their ruling, since he was acting as the president, they decided you can’t consider his intent. So the prosecution would need to argue that there’s no possible infringement on constitutional power if the president can be prosecuted for discussing an election, election security, and election interference with Governors and law enforcement.

There was a time when I was a student that I spent a lot of time near a particular coffee shop, and more than you would typically expect for just studying and the like, since it turned into the place where my friend group basically hung out most of the time.
In any case, it was a decently high traffic area and since I was there a lot I found two wallets and a cellphone over the time I was there a lot.

One wallet had an emergency contact I was able to call, think it was their mother, and that I’d be at the coffee shop for a bit. They brought me cookies, and I was thrilled.
Next person just had their phone number, and they acted like I was a creep for saying I had their wallet and would like to give it back to them, so I told them I was leaving it with the cashier and left it at that and was a bit sad, since being told off for trying to be nice is a bummer.
Cellphone was the worst. I called their most recent number and told them what was up (this was clearly before ubiquitous lock screens). Owner called me back in the same number and threatened to call the cops on me so I hung up, powered off the phone and put it back where I found it. Felt sad.

Given how it seems like everyone has lost their minds now, I’m not sure I would risk letting someone know I found their stuff. I’d still try to return it because that’s the right thing to do, but I’m not sure if I’d be willing to use my own phone number or anything.
If people will shoot you for using their driveway to turn around I can only imagine what they’d do for a bus pass, student ID and a loyalty punch card for a bakery.

Other than the consequences that would happen as a result, it’d be hilarious if Canada ended up doing a, I think we call them, “preemptive targeted use of force against specific individuals determined to pose an active threat to national security”.

How fucked is it if another country, historically our closest ally, assassinated our president so many of us would just be like “yeah, makes sense”.

In the grand scheme of things the money from the sale of the cars is relatively insignificant to his wealth.
The stock price dropping hurts him a lot more, and “people don’t want to buy the cars” is better for the price than “people actively hate the company”.

He’s also going to have an increasingly difficult time getting the insurance to pay the sales price of the car when it won’t sell.

I have my doubts that any nation is going to accept the precedent that other nations can have authority over their use of military force.

That also sets a difficult precedent, both for soldiers and the court. If following an order to participate in an invasion of another country, while only engaging with valid military targets according to the rules of war, is a war crime if the international community later decides it wasn’t justified then soldiers will become war criminals not because of their actions being brutal or unethical, but because they were insufficiently aware of the global opinion of a war.

Second, it potentially puts the court in a position where they suddenly need to imprison literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers, to say nothing of arresting and trying them. This could easily make the court appear toothless when they fail to have the power to arrest the US army, nor to actually have a place to put them.

I entirely agree we shouldn’t do it, but I don’t believe it would necessarily be an illegal order to follow.

Invading a sovereign country for overtly offensive reasons isn’t against any particular military law, it’s just shitty.

The president doesn’t have the power to declare war, only to do everything involved in a war, but I don’t think that would actually make any of the orders illegal, unless they were to explicitly do some war crimes or some such.

If your sales decline is because of a boycott by the “radical left”, doesn’t that mean that your product mostly appeals to … The “radical left”?

And it was related to a policy initiative, and he didn’t have price notes and feature lists.

“Business that benefits from policy initiative let’s president use their stuff for a photo op during pitch tour” has a very different connotation than “president tries to sell people the car of his backer from the Whitehouse lawn”.

Reducing vaccinations reduces herd immunity though.

There’s no polite way to say it. He’s not very intelligent and has a poor grasp of the information that would lead you to see that they’re effective.
If you don’t trust the government or establishment and you don’t have the capacity to evaluate evidence, then anything the government or established medical system says is good must be bad.

The most charitable explanation is that he, admittedly, had a worm eat part of his brain.

You can find reasons that people could be pushing vaccines that don’t do anything, but that doesn’t mean they actually are doing so.

I’d lean towards it being a case where routine expenses are presumed to be covered, and cancelling the card would just mean people payba different way. Setting a cap would change the definition of reasonable. I believe it also leaves existing already approved recurring transactions unchanged, since they probably don’t want to get sued for suddenly not paying bills.

https://smartpay.gsa.gov/

The government doesn’t run their own CC infrastructure, but they issue their own cards so cancellation is basically free. It’s kinda weird to say, but the government is bigger than any bank, so it makes sense that they would do things that even small banks are capable of.

Even then I don’t think so. It all took too long, so much so that a lot of people wouldn’t even say that it had happened. Like the modern world, people in Rome consistently said that it was in dire condition and was better in the past golden era. Like, for 500 years before it fell people were saying that they were on the brink. People are really quite bad at judging where they are in broad historical terms.

Personally, I doubt this is actually the fall of the US as a superpower/empire/whatever. Too much territory with too many resources with too many people who all identify as the same broad national identity.
How history views this time is anyone’s guess. Hoover, for all the damage he did, is largely mentioned because of how he pissed people off enough to elect FDR. It doesn’t seem likely at the moment, but it wouldn’t the first time an isolationist president has slapped dumb tarrifs on everything to blow-up an already concerning economic situation to try and protect american business while pissing off the world both economically and diplomatically, only to be followed by a president who significantly changed things and made the country better and stronger.

The process of change can be so slow on the historical scale that we still don’t know if FDR or trump is the weird one, and they’re separated by a long and full life.

However, I will say that if Germans sack DC and depose trump that out of historical consistency we’re obligated to declare the fall of the eastern American empire and send a symbolic vestige of power to California, which we will then refuse to call America.