Mexico’s murder rate leveled off years ago. It’s still unacceptably high, but it’s been a while since they’ve been a less-failed state than today.

However, Guerrero is one of the worst-affected states for drug violence

This is the same mistake people make in the US when talking about “unsafe cities” ignoring that crime is concentrated in certain parts. The same rule applies everywhere in the world: there’s safe and unsafe spots. So no, you’re not gonna get kidnapped from a Cancun resort anytime soon.

Probably less javascript. In theory, javascript makes sites faster because it diverts processing to the user’s browser. In reality, developers use it to load all sorts of frameworks, third party whatevers, and other crap that slows things down. In other words, the same reason old websites load fast.

Logically, the answer would have to be that Democrats lack the power to preserve it. Which happens to be true because:

1. Ordinary legislation would not be sufficient to overturn state laws regarding abortion due to the 10th Amendment, and even if it was the 2/3 Republican court would overturn it anyway.
2. A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 majority that Democrats will not have in this lifetime.

King of the Elitists

This is the sequel to Rain Man that was never made.

I’d argue it’s not a paradox because it relies on two different definitions of tolerance.

• Tolerance 1: Intolerant opinions should be allowed to exist without criminal punishment.
• Tolerance 2: Everyone should treat intolerant opinions like other opinions for the purposes of platforming, how you feel about the speaker, etc.

Tolerance 1 is basically the kind of free speech principles adopted by most democratic societies and is probably necessary for such societies to remain free. Tolerance 2 is just silly. If you’re in a forum specifically for debating deplorable opinions, fine. But there’s no reason that a politics forum needs to cater to deplorable opinions.

Hypothetically there could be bigots you could have a rational debate with, but they tend to not remain bigots for long.

He used to care enough about money to not say these things publicly. Now he’s got so much money that it really doesn’t matter if it costs him a billion dollars to tweet something stupid.

Either that or all the ketamine over the long term fucked up his brain somehow.

Let’s be real, teenagers are always assholes. There’s a lot of social pressure for teens to be assholes. Look at any teen movie for example, the plot is pretty much always about how adults are wrong about everything and how freeing yourself to be more of an asshole (and generally louder in every way) is the way to go.

Roads lead to road rage
Road rage leads to other kinds of rage

Obligatory video (click at your own risk)

It’s overwhelmingly likely to be someone none of us have ever heard of. If nothing else because that’s the base rate. Also because someone nerdy enough to care about this stuff before cryptocurrency existed couldn’t possibly have a life.

I use it occasionally. Recently I used it to convert a written specification in a document to a java object. And it was like 95% correct - but having to manually double check everything and fix the errors eliminated much of the time savings.

However that’s a very ideal use case. Most often I forget it exists.

And the school board president ran as a member of the “Libertarian Party”.

The catch-22 is that the 3 liberal justices dissented from the opinion. So all 9 can be presumed to vote against Biden being immune for assassinating his opponent, and eliminating justices won’t really help.

To give a serious answer: The short answer is probably, the long answer is no.

The opinion was deliberately vague on that issue. A dissent said they could under Roberts’ opinion, but Roberts calls that “fear mongering” without elaborating whether that’s true or not.

It’s also a pretty complicated opinion so bear with me. The whole thing comes down to this vague idea of official vs. unofficial acts which are supposed to be immune according to the court. Really, there’s multiple factual allegations and the court said each one has some level of immunity (and if you think these are full of contradictions, I know):

• Asking the DOJ to pressure states to investigate obvious spurious “fraud” claims and pressure states to throw out their results, and threatening to fire them if they refuse - here Trump is “absolutely immune” because the DOJ is part of the executive branch and the president has power to fire them, I guess for any reason now.
• Trying to get Mike Pence to refuse the vote count and throw the whole country into a chaotic power struggle - presumptively immune, because the president and vice president can talk about their duties. Can be rebutted if the government can prove a prosecution wouldn’t pose a danger of intrusion into executive branch functions, whatever the hell that means.
• Trump personally telling state officials to change electoral votes - here Roberts says there’s no basis for Trump to claim immunity because there’s no presidential power to try and coerce state officials. However, he then says it’s up to the lower court to consider if it’s official or not before proceeding, and is entirely unclear on who has the burden of proof here.
• Using twitter and a speech to organize and then start a riot at the capitol - similar to the above, the president has official duties relating to speaking but yada yada yada it’s sent back to the lower court to decide whether this is official or not.

Conclusion: Ordering an assassination of a rival certainly sounds most like the first - the president has several official duties relating to giving military orders, and the military is part of the executive branch. The FBI is also part of the DOJ, so if Trump can order the DOJ to do something criminal, that itself could be an assassination. But as described in the article below, one could make an argument that no, the opinion doesn’t actually say he do that with the military specifically, because congress has some powers relating to war (not convincing). However, to be fair to that opinion, this immunity ruling is such a stinker that lower and future courts will limit its holding as much as humanly possible. Plus seemingly contradictory aspects to it (Trump can order the DOJ to do things he can’t do himself?) could be used to argue for exceptions to the overall immunity. But reading the opinion at face value, yes the president could order an assassination, and even fire generals who refuse to pass along those orders.

Longer answer though: This is the real world. If Biden gave such an order, it would likely result in a coup and an overthowing of the Constitutional order as a whole. And if order were somehow restored and Biden brought up on criminal charges, you could be your life that the 6-3 Republican majority on the court would find a way to either limit or perhaps overturn their prior ruling as it pertains to Biden.

For an alternative perspective on the same topic, here’s a center-to-slightly-right-leaning law professor’s take on this which does a pretty plausible job sane-washing the opinion.

So I thought this must have been a tongue in cheek comment but I saw the actual video and it seems he’s actually serious, as is the maga host interviewing him (Eric Metaxas):

“It’s still there?”
“It’s still there.”
“Ok, that’s nuts. Like how has the media not covered this?”
“The media doesn’t cover a lot of things that are true.”

deleted by creator

It’s a good question. Her policies as mayor were very different from AMLO’s, and it’s frankly weird that AMLO (a fossil fuel fundamentalist and Trump-like populist) had a PhD climate scientist as his successor. But she is officially his successor and kept a lot of AMLO people. There’s no easy answers, we’ll just have to wait and see.