• 7 Posts
  • 1.24K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 31st, 2023

help-circle
  • Disagree. I don’t like when people just say “everyone who says x is just cheap”. There’s a huge chunk of people out there getting Starbucks. But there’s also an insane amount of people just cutting costs at every opportunity. Of course not all of them need to buy all the cheap products to survive, but for some of them it is, and for a lot more they can choose between more premium products and being able travel once a year.

    Sure, Fiji water might not be luxurious, but there’s genuine reasons why lots of people effectively can’t afford to buy more premium products,and Fiji water might just be one of them.







  • If you mean the case where he raised presidential immunity against seditious conspiracy charges?

    The reason he was granted this is because in his capacity of president, basically the courts are supposed to cut him some slack if he does some accidental criming; you see, if the president does it, it’s usually necessary to perform his duties and if you stop him you are preventing him from getting any work done. That’s basically what the supreme Court ruled. It’s a bit like when cops raise qualified immunity. It’s supposed to insulate them from personal grievances so they are able perform their duties. Only that the presidential immunity is way worse for us, because a cop can raise it and then prosecution has the burden to prove there was a rule and the cop knew it. But in this case it’s worse because the president just has to say it was in his presidential capacity and that’s it iirc.

    So back to your question: can you do so too? No. You are not a president, you don’t have presidential immunity.








  • I was gonna say, sentences in the US both server as punishment and deterrence. As outlined,it sounds like a big social taboo that was broken and it wasn’t broken randomly, there’s pecuniary gain and there’s a systematic breach. I am unsure if these are aggravating factors in the legal sense, but if not, they are most definitely factors considered in the sentencing guidelines and they serve a function and thus they are needed.

    Everyone wants the state to be hard on crime; here it is, our opportunity to be hard on crime given the egregious nature of the crime. And it’s not like most criminal cases where the lines are blurry - there’s a bunch of bodies and the very clearly point in exactly one direction.