MrTrono

You mean for a third time? Fat lot of good the first two did

Is it tyrannical to make companies obey laws they don't agree with? I mean it's probably tyrannical for the law to exist in the first place but this feels like a "well well well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions" for these companies propping up establishment candidates who line up be cucked by Israel.

The thing is the statute of limitations extends beyond Trump's presidency and the penalties are levied against the hosting and distributing companies (Oracle, Google, Apple) wouldn't it be lovely if the next president assuming we get a next president enforced the law and collected the fines from these companies.

I keep seeing this but the claim is dubious at best and feel like conflating correlation with causation. While the examples cited were largely non violent they had aspects and sub movements advocating violence and destruction, so any outcomes cannot be isolated in a way to make this claim.

So by extension if I am peacefully protesting and somebody tries to hit me with a car/deadly weapon can I "Stand My Ground" and shoot at the driver? Asking for a friend.

Lucky for me I can't even purchase movies any more, what I can purchase is a limited revocable license. Did enshitification accidentally find a tariff loop hole?

And Democratic senators like Amy Klobuchar are writing laws to help him

To be fair it doesn't create a police state. It asks agencies how they might effectively allocate resources in a police state and what their first targets should be. But yeah the US is fucked.

Also known as Gell-Mann amnesia

Good, it's not safe here.

Pretending that the law matters during a fascist coup is not productive.