Fermion

Right, they would be subject to new prosecution for new crimes because of their recidivism. The pardoned crimes are no longer relevant to whether they end up incarcerated again. My point is that we have already seen high rates of recidivism in those pardoned by Trump, and a reformed Attorney General's office or states can prosecute crimes that haven't been pardoned. This doesn't provide justice for the corruption of bad pardons, but if the end result is incarceration just the same, then that might be close enough to justice.

I think we are in agreement, I guess I didn't phrase my initial comment particularly well.

One of the most humane solutions is also the most economically efficient. Early intervention programs like rent/utility assistance are significantly cheaper in the long run than trying to rehabilitate people who have already lost everything and have a litany of health issues because of it. If conservatives really want to save money, they should be embracing "an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure." Instead, they're stuck in wanting to SEE the desperation before even considering helping. Safety nets are major economic stimulus in the long run because it's much easier to attempt entrepeneurship if you aren't making a life and death gamble. But something tells me the currently wealthy know this and don't want competition popping up.

Then of course we also need to fix affordability issues, because unaffordable necessities put everyone at risk.

My point is that even if you mostly just care about efficient government and economic growth, you should still come to similar conclusions as "bleeding heart liberals." Conservatives don't come to those conclusions not by economic arguments, but because they fail to see the merit of collective problem solving. They want to have their own little castle with all their stuff that they can defend under penalty of death. We pretend the argument is about feasability and cost effectiveness, but the real issue is that they don't think that any proposal that would take anything from them or require giving is an option. That's why you see the economically destitute and ultra wealthy in an unholy alliance. Both of those groups are prone to wanting to circle the wagons and consider only the wellbeing of people in their little circle -- the poor out of desperation, and the wealthy out of possessiveness. Everyone not in their little circle is someone else's problem.

Unless that person has comitted more crimes they were not previously prosecuted for. Which is not entirely unlikely if they are emboldened by having avoided punishment thanks to the backing of a corrupt POTUS. I.E. multiple Jan 6'ers. I would expect high rates of recidivism for beneficiaries of Trumo pardons.

Albeit prosecuting new crimes is not undoing a pardon, but it may achieve a measure of justice anyway.

Lina ~~Kahn~~ Khan losing her position in the FTC is one of the most underrated negative consequences of the 2024 election. Sometimes I wonder if fear of ~~Kahn~~ Khan is why so many companies backed Trump even though wallstreet knew the economy would be healthier under Harris.

Also, most in flight wifi and a lot of hotel wifi won't connect until you set dns back to automatic. It's easy enough to switch, but there's no error code to indicate that it's necessary so you have to just remember that might be the issue.

I agree that the limitations should be stated more clearly, but even a software configurable switch is desirable. In some apps, the button to turn on the camera is a bit too easy to accidently press for my liking. If someone calls and I'm in my pj's I don't want to accidently enable video.

Someone has to pay for that acquisition, and it won't be the shareholders.

Hubba Bubba has the opportunity to launch the most irreverent ad campaign imaginable.

In Nov 2024, this district voted for a Republican with a 21.5% lead. Now in Dec 2025, they voted in a Republican but with an 8.9% margin.

That 12.6% swing to the left in TN has to be making a bunch of Republicans planning to run for the 2026 midterms feel a bit nervous.

That's a truck tail light...

The messaging on this note could use some refinements.

How can something that is very much a burden to you not be a burden for the people around you? Are they somehow that much stronger than you? There's a hint of cognitive dissonance to accept the message as written.

I prefer the mentality of acknowledging that people who care will eagerly help carry the burdens of others if the relationship is treated with love, respect, and reciprosity.

You might have problems that feel very bursensome to yourself, but to others it is an opportunity to show their support. A hard situation can strengthen relationships instead of being isolating. So having burdens doesn't make you undesirable, it just means you need good collaborators to help carry and maybe eventually resolve them with you.

Ah yes we should all hand over our free agency to the machines built and controlled by broligarchs. It'll be great, they'll tell us what to think and feel so we don't have to be anything but mindless consumers.

I don't know what this guy is smoking, but I'll pass and I hope most everyone else does as well.