Trump argued in court that a president could order seal team 6 to murder his political rival and would be 100% immune from prosecution (unless he was first impeached) because ordering seal team 6 is an official action of the president which Trump’s team is arguing makes him immune until impeached, and that a president cannot be impeached after leaving office, meaning if you commit the treason or murder (or any crime at all) so near the end of your term you can’t be impeached before leaving office you get off Scott free…even if you leave early to escape prosecution.

Hate to tell you, they’re 100% wrong and they are going to lose…one of the judges asked the question about assassinations using seal team 6. Trump’s lawyer fucked the infantile answer so badly it’s now being forced to carry his stillborn progeny to term.

Note, if they say he’s not guilty of the 91 counts not because he didn’t do them but because absolute presidential immunity is a thing, Biden can have him assassinated tomorrow as an official act and as long as it stays classified until January, no crime no foul! Trump will have just made presidential assassinations 100% legal. Thanks Trump! 😂

Trump also argued he could pardon himself, so Biden could do that too….if Trump “wins” in court.

What’s hilarious is they clearly haven’t thought it through at all….if his argument wins AND he wins the presidency (and isn’t assassinated on Jan 6), his entire term will be impeachment hearings over the 91 felony charges he’s facing because he will be president again and double jeopardy doesn’t apply because he was never in jeopardy before since these cases get thrown out without prejudice. Winning in court and winning the ballot is a HUGE LOSS for Trump…unless he immediately quits and his vp pardons him.

As a bonus, Trump’s team presented “new evidence” (not allowed) in his appeal that was an anonymous undated fake “election fraud report” actually drafted by his own team member, Liz Harrington, not election fraud experts, and it’s chock full of arguments that have already failed in court…that and his own tweets.

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

Wow, you would have thought that starting the car would require proximity to the key as well. That seems like a really basic security flaw.

What happens if you leave the car unlocked (or worse, the door or window is open?

He is an idiot when it comes to being President, but he is an absolute genius when it comes to tearing apart potential contenders in elections. He knows there is a strong chance that Senator Warren will run against him in 2020, so he is always going to hit her in what is, admittedly, a huge weak spot for her.

I would still vote for her against him, but she needs to realize and be prepared should she run that this is something she is going to have to finally answer. It doesn't even have to be a difficult one, just say that she made a mistake based on bad family anecdotes which led her to believe she might have been part Native American. People will forgive a mistake if you are clear about it, but if you leave it vague (which she unfortunately has), then Trump WILL exploit it.

That actually isn't too far from reality for me, if you leave out banging the table. One of the songs my 2 year old loves before going to bed is this punk version of Nelly The Elephant. Once I get him into bed, as he goes to sleep a regular request is one of my usual songs (generally Monty Python or similar) sung as a monster in a gruff shouting voice.

Whatever gets the little feckers angels to sleep.

Dunno but if you leave Marmite out long enough it'll develop its own genes.

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

I recently learned that in Japan tipping is unacceptable. If you leave a tip they'll chase you down and give it back to you.

Same Harris' response to the whole affair: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

I do think that it's important while pointing out these things, one also needs to point out that here in the US at least, over half the Christians claim to be pro-life while supporting the death penalty, encouraging war, and being against programs that help the needy and the poor, or at least that's how they vote. And here perhaps Maher and Harris fail...I think it's fairly obvious all religion is bad. Christianity spread by the sword, forcing Europe to convert from their Pagan ways, eventually offering to integrate aspects of Pagan holidays into Christian ones to make it more enticing. Convert or die may not be practiced in Christianity much now, but public shaming if you leave Christianity and bigotry to those of other religions or lack of faith is very real. Several polls have shown that most Christians would prefer to elect a Muslim over an Atheist even if they are otherwise the same. And many still seem to believe in that religion should be pushed, not just something tolerated and allowed... of course I admit I'm a bit colored and biased by the fact I'm surrounded by the Tea Party/Fox News type Christians pretty much everywhere I go, home, a bit at work... Were I to escape being around them so much, I'd probably soften my view a bit.

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

Incorrect, that's not a fish eye camera.
He's more than one car length behind, but not much more than 2, granted, until the Peugeot stops, then he gets closer. At the beginning, he's more than one full road marker behind. Technically perhaps that's still tailgating, but it's considered perfectly normal driving in traffic (in the US anyway)...if you leave that much room in a city, you'll be cut off constantly and never move.
Even if he was tailgating, the proper course of action is to get out of the fast lane if you are slower traffic, not have a tantrum and stop on the freeway in the fast lane causing a likely deadly accident...and you get what you get when you take the law into your own hands. I hope the passenger also sues the Peugeot driver....and he lost his license for at least an extended period if not permanantly.

That's all fine but you can use a smart phone in moderation. I suppose if he doesn't feel he has the self control, that's a perfectly good reason.

You also don't have to buy the latest and greatest model, you can buy a very cheap one? They're still very capable and if you leave it at the default install, you're really just looking at improving your interaction with your phone.

Don't get a data plan and well, you're truly going to just have a nicer to use phone. I think modern UIs are objectively better than those keypad based interfaces.

Of course, do as you please, it's just a bit weird to here "smart phones" put under one category like this, there's thousands and thousands of different models to suit different use cases. You don't need to limit yourself to "dumb phones" to put barriers on your usage.

I'm impressed by the other drivers actually, there's like, a good 100 ft of foot-to-the-floor-to-get-past-the-two-people-in-front-of-you room.

Around here, if you leave 4 ft in front of you, some short dick with a lifted 1ton dually crew-cab will cut you off and flip you the bird for the privilege.

If you leave out the digression about the rings, this was pretty reasonably by Pat Robertson standards. Not entirely accurate, of course, but pretty good for Pat.

You also missed the option about getting headaches and the shakes if you leave the sift for more than 24 hours...