They never will. Oh, sure, I can see congress ramming some kind of resolution declaring Trump and everyone else they called in as traitors and trying to use it to bar them from office. But I'll be stunned if they try to do any criminal proceedings, because then basic things like cross examination and witnesses called by the other side come in.
In what possible way is this good? All this is going to do is make simps simpier and thots thottier. Because now in addition to already being the primary source of income for governments, young men are going to keep wanting to get a relationship they can't get and now they're going to be punished for not getting it.
I have to agree with Imp here. Over the last 5 or so years, the definition of rape has changed so much that basically any woman who wants an abortion will just say "but he raped me", and then she gets the abortion and the guy's life is ruined. Until the legal and social definitions of rape clearly define that sex you regret is not rape and that 2 drunk/high people having sex is not rape, until people stop just taking one woman's accusation as proof of rape and trying to ruin a guy's life over it (heck, just look at the comments on the linked article where one guy says Trump, Thomas and Kavanaugh are rapists), and until provably false rape accusations are actually punished, having a rape exception in abortion laws is just going to get more men falsely accused.
Boris is also telling people (especially Macron) that even talking to Putin is putting Ukraine at risk. Dude is straight up trying to turn this into WW3.
10 seconds in, and all I can say is shut up. The administration you are a part of has repeatedly tried to (or succeeded in) violating every single one of the bill of rights over the last year and a half. You don't give a **** about rights, only power.
Someone else will sell the same livestock and the emissions will just move somewhere else.
No, you granny-killing polluting bigot! We shouldn't be eating animal products in the first place, and will ban livestock everywhere! Be happy with your soy, and we may give you a couple bugs if you're compliant.
If the defense doesn't want to gather any, then it doesn't have to and it certainly wouldn't be going after any potentially harmful evidence. But, getting some basic defense evidence is a lot easier than you seem to make it out to be - I'm assuming you would have an alibi for why you didn't commit a murder and I imagine you could get some evidence supporting the alibi could be fairly easy. Testimony from a friend that you were hanging out, traffic logs from a streaming service or a game service that you were at home watching/playing when the murder happened, GPS data from your phone, whatever. A lawyer could at least request if not get that in a week or two without any issue.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the prosecutors. I'm sure a some good ones were lost, but plenty of them are garbage.
The new discovery requirements they mention say that evidence has to be turned over to the defense:
-
Within 15 days if it is a traffic offense or code violation
-
Within 20 days if the defendant is being kept in jail
-
Within 35 days if the defendant is free pending charges
-
The prosecutors can request a 30 day extension if they deem there to be larger amounts of evidence.
Now, the one area I would disagree with it some is that apparently some cases are getting thrown out because of things the prosecution is not using are not getting turned over to the defense. So I think it would be fair for the defense to gather their own evidence and then submit it to the prosecution within the same timeframe. And then the evidence allowed to be used in the trial is the combination of what both gathered. (It makes little sense to me that only one side has to do the legwork). And additionally I can certainly see cases where people (or bureaucracies) would stonewall handing over evidence to the prosecutors thus making it difficult to hit the deadlines.
But the 6th amendment exists for a reason. Keeping someone in jail for months on shaky or trumped up charges (cough Jan 6 cough), or cases like Rittenhouse prove why it is necessary, and frankly that it is not being enforced. The event happened on August 25th, 2020. Rittenhouse was charged on January 5th, 2021 - over four months before he was even told what he was being charged with. The trial itself didn't start until November 1st, 2021 - more than 14 months since the event. There was no valid justification for that delay, other then the prosecutors and DA just trying to punish Kyle extra-judicially.
So, yeah, I'm not crying over prosecutors who say they're being overworked by needing to do their job in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not sure if you're serious or just repeating the MSM talking points, but that logic is exactly why I posted the link and quote. None of those trigger laws will punish a mother from getting an abortion if her life is at risk. What they remove is the 95%+ (I don't remember the exact number, I think it's probably higher than that) of abortions which are basically used as a form of late birth control.
Don't believe me? The NYT conveniently provided links to all of those trigger laws back in May, so you can see for youself. For example, South Dakota (which is arguably the most restrictive of them)
Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
a) Abortion is not illegal in any state yet (and I doubt it will ever be entirely illegal). Even with the Missouri law that people keep spamming, if you actually look at it it, abortion is still legal if there is a medical reason for it. What gets banned is elective abortion.
The law makes no exception for rape or incest. Its only exceptions are for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”
b) If the Dobbs decision does lead to a massive scaleback in the amount of digital surveillance going on, this will be one of the best weekends ever.
Writers took to Twitter to throw shade at LBG who is normally seen as liberal icon questioning why she didn't step down while President Obama was in office
That's an obvious answer to anyone with a brain: Killary was supposed to win in 2016 and RGB wanted to wait until then so that she could resign and her replacement could be appointed by The First Female President
I expect they will try but I do not see how they can. Is just one country invading another country, this was the norm for most of human history. There is nothing particular about Russia vs Ukraine that they can add that would stand out in a medieval setting.
It's cringe to do it, but not too difficult. There are two separate tribes of orcs, one led by the thing in the OP (call it the Urukine tribe or something, though that may be too obvious even for Hollywood), and one led by an angry male orc. The heroes will have several fights with the Urukine, including the alluded to scene above where they are either narrowly defeated and driven off (but the noble Urukine spare them for some reason), or just narrowly win (but many of the Urukine in the fight can safely retreat). A few episodes later, the second orc tribe attacks the Urukine to force them to join their evil war machine which is rampaging across Middle Earth, and the Urukine ask the heroes for help, as the Urukine have been demonstrated to be honorable and somewhat noble while the second tribe is just a bunch of murderhobos.
Even ignoring how you are treating your personal choices in mods as canon (which they're not, on several levels) and as impacting every member of a race (which they don't, they just impact the Dragonborn), you have at least 4 factual errors about the contents of the game in your post
So, as before, you just keep showing your complete ignorance of the game, and your own biases. Play the games before trying to classify things about it.
I think I have sufficiently demolished your opinion; there is no need to address your every intuitive failure.
Nope, you just keep showing your complete ignorance of the game, and your own biases
First, Castle Volikhar is nowhere near Windhelm. Here's a handy map if you need it. In fact, the castle is in the northwest corner of the map. Yes, there is a ferryman in Windhelm that can take you near it but there are also ferrymen in Dawnstar and Solitude that can do so. And Argonians - with their high racial resistance to disease - are in fact the least likely race to contract Sanguinare Vampiris. In fact, I don't believe we encounter a single named Argonian vampire in the game, and Skyrim's code for randomly generating vampires does not even allow for Argonian vampires, and the chance of a random Arognian thrall is much lower than any mer or man race since thralls are drawn from the bandit leveled lists, most of which exclude Argonians.
Plus, what do you mean by Alteration drain spells? The general drain spells were removed in Skyrim, but in Morrowind and Oblivion were both under Destruction, not Alteration. And the one remaining offensive drain spell in Skyrim - vampiric drain - is under Destruction.
Oh, and why do you focus so much on just Windhelm, when more Argonians live in Riften than Windhelm?
There is literally nothing in game to support your premise that Argonians are kidnapping babies for the vampires. It is entirely your own invention.
(Oh, and if you want to talk about betraying humanity for a crust of bread, Khajiit easily fit that too based on quests, as seen by the multiple occasions throughout the game where Khajiit NPCs turn out to be assassins working for the Thalmor).
Not even going to bother wasting my time on why you are insisting that Orcs are evil while Nords are good, given your complete lack of any in-game rationale for it, and the fact that you continue to show you know nothing beyond the most surface level aspects of the game. If, for example, you want to pick a race which would preferentially seek out the Ebony Blade and Mail it would be a Dunmer, not an Orc, since Dunmer worship Boethiah and Mephala while Orcs would hate Boethiah because of what happened to Malakath.
TL;DR - play the games before trying to classify things about it.
Can't comment on Outlook (outside of "just check your e-mail on the e-mail provider's website). Well, Mozilla has Thunderbird which was - years back - functional enough but Mozilla has their own issues these days.
For Word, though, go with Libreoffice. Nearly as effective, cross-platform, free, and also getting away from the software-as-a-service model MS is trying to go to for with Office 365.
Note that I judged these alignments primarily by game mechanics, not lore.
So why do you say Khajiit are slightly mischevious self-interested traders who just want to get by while Argonians are stealing babies to feed them to vampires? Why (even though they have virtually the same starting skills) do you put Nords at Neutral Good without comment while you spend several paragraphs classifying Orcs as mentally retarted, sexist chaotic evil drunkards? And that's without even getting into things like you claiming Dunmer have a penchant for vampirism, and your blanket statement that Elves are more civilized and the Beast Races are lawless. All of those things are - on a mechanical level - profoundly absurd.
Sure, it's a single player game so classify the races and play them however you like in your own playthroughs. But taking your own biases and then claiming that "oh, gameplay mechanics support this!" when it doesn't is just bad form.
So did Shakespeare, and they're consistently trying to marginalize him.
I think the biggest thing with Dickens is that his work can be turned into arguments in favor of progressive points of view. Christmas Carol = "see how the rich are exploiting the common man!" Oliver Twist = "see how the system was (or is) exploiting poor innocent children!" Heck, I could even see someone trying to twist Tale of Two CIties into an argument about how Darnay shows how we should be more welcoming to refugees.
Well, good news then. This isn't an adaptation of any books. It's forced to be set in the 2nd age, which only has a very bare-bones chronology to it. So it's almost entirely from Amazon's own imagination. I'm sure that will make things better, right?