charonn0

“He would say things similar to that on occasions to blow off steam. But I wouldn’t take them literally every time he did it,” Mr Barr said, adding: “At the end of the day, it wouldn’t be carried out and you could talk sense into him.”

So either we're counting on people to refuse the president's orders, or we're hoping the Trump is more mature than he lets on?

How about not electing people who would even entertain such an idea in the first place?

Does the library provide ethernet jacks for patrons to use? If not then I can understand why a librarian would be surprised.

I haven't been having any major problems except for occasional framerate stuttering, but then I don't use that many mods.

My only real complaint is that there's really no new story content, it's just a couple of new locations (Enclave checkpoints like FO3) some new armor and weapon types, and a handful of quests that are pretty much radiant quests with a coat of Enclave paint. Considering the download was like 10GB I was expecting more. If Google is telling me the truth, that's bigger than all the other DLC combined.

So change parties?

When in doubt, shut up.

The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.

What a hyperbolic, heavy-handed headline.

Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn't address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.

The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.

This part:

a desperate attempt to keep young people from discussing Joes pet genocide where they can’t be censored by the us govt.

suggests that users are being censored by the US government. Doesn't it?

require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired

That would be a very different kind of law from the one we're talking about.

That's the opposite of what the court said.

It's almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.

Well, no. The courts struck down Trump's Tiktok ban because he used an executive order that overstepped his authority.