the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.

Are you joking?

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

Also,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers

Right here is where she’s losing me. It’s The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.

Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they’re “core” official acts or “perimeter” official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there’s no way Trump is getting away with everything.

POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.

I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.

In the sense that the Constitution is above the law, yes.

The president is not obligated with protecting elections so that should not fall within absolute immunity. At best, the president appoints election-related officials and may pressure them to do something about an election, But acting unilaterally is not something a president is supposed to do. (In my opinion)

Edit: Having now read the syllabus and opinions a couple times, Roberts has stated what I have. It’s up to judicial review to determine if what he’s done is within his core duties or peripheral duties.

I’m super confident this guy will be found guilty of election interference. When is a much bigger unknown.

As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There’s a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.

So, from what I’m reading, this ruling hasn’t really changed very much. It actually seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.

Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what “official acts” are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.

So, it’s up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.

In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.

Also, FWIW, SCOTUS very clearly states in the middle of Page 8 “The President is not above the law.”

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

The country was founded in large part as a nation for those escaping oppression and persecution for their beliefs. It was designed to provide everyone certain freedoms the founders claimed to be inalienable.

While this is still an immensely powerful idea, it can not function without guidelines and government involvement.

Two hundred fifty years ago, it made sense for sparsely populated states to operate mostly independent of the federal government. In time, land became more dense and borders dividing populations and cultures and commerce blurred. Now, the entire world is instantly connected.

Somehow, generation after generation, it was not self-evident that all people should be treated equally. The police force and prison system still largely resemble what they were initially intended to do - serve the wealthy and enslave people for profit.

The United States affords everyone the same freedoms and opportunities by way of doing nothing at all. Everyone has the opportunity to work hard and make a fair living for themselves. But some people win the genetic lottery and inherit extra opportunities and extra freedoms.

We all have the freedom to be complete idiots and that’s considered a win.

Our constitution needs to be re-written. In my opinion, it needs to be explicit about what all the citizens of the United States should be afforded: education, health care, clean air and water, shelter, the right to not be lied to by the people who draft and pass legislation impacting our lives, the right to a source of information that’s not subject to special interests.

No. I can’t say I like it. I don’t like how our government is intent on making our lives worse by their inaction. They take more and more of our money while we get less and less in benefits.

We have no leadership. We have influencers and celebrities. Some people complain about globalism because they know we can’t compete on a global scale. People are prejudice of foreigners who take their jobs because they’re complacent with doing as little as possible. Our most successful form of entertainment is ragebait. Who’s helping us progress as a country? Who’s helping to make us smarter and healthier and happier? Who exactly is promoting general welfare and domestic tranquility?

It’s the land of the me and home of maybe. And our constitution supports your freedom to be this way. Some people love that and claim the freedom to do nothing is what makes America great.

A great America, to me, is one built for everyone to prosper, that promotes self-worth and civil respect, that strictly enforces the idea that my freedoms can not be infringed upon by you freedoms or beliefs. A great America is one that doesn’t have elections where you have to vote for the person you dislike the least. Politics should be positively engaging. We should give a damn about our leaders and they should have to deal with consequences of their actions, like anyone else.

Though it’s not perfect, the one thing I really love about America is our immigration policy. It’s the best place on the planet for people to escape for a better life. Our country is built by and thrives because of immigrants. It’s the one thing that has held true for hundreds of years. How we treat immigrants is a sin. How our government fails to properly fund our immigration system is appalling. I believe most people are in support of legal immigration yet they fail to support proper funding of our immigration department. It wreaks of racism and bigotry.

America is, by design, the land of the self-righteous. The only people in favor of that are the self-righteous.

people haven’t been taking politics seriously and have elected unserious people.

This is the inherent flaw. We have a representative government that never intended “people” to take politics seriously. Politics was for the landowners.

An excuse not to interact with people.
“Sorry, my notifications were off while I was busy yesterday and didn’t have a chance to check it”.

It shows me options to purchase. Season 1 is $20 from Amazon.

Does this work where you live? https://www.justwatch.com/us/search?q=Chuck

Absolutely. Apple, Amazon, Google, Vudu, Movies Anywhere (off the top of my head).

What I recently learned is that some physical discs will come with download codes that can be used, once, on any of these services. I was gifted the Alien box set which was nice but I don’t have a Blu-ray player. The code allowed me to add the films to my iTunes account.

Now, how long I can watch those movies until a license runs out is another question. I’ve yet to find a way to download a movie to disc for backup. Because, technically, you don’t buy a movie, you buy the license to watch it. This is even the case for physical discs.

You’re going to need to be more specific. What movie are you looking for and on what platform?

My initial reason for not having kids was financial. I think a lot of people have learned it may be better to have children later in life when you can properly care for them. I know many people who’ve had their first child in their late-30s and early-40s. My aunt had her first child in her fifties. That’s not something that was common before modern medicine.

I have always had the idea that I would have a kid if and when I met the right person to share parenting with. That hasn’t happened so I’ve had to put some thought into my priorities. It’s not fair to have a child just because it’s what society says you should do or just because you want someone to take care of you when you’re old. It’s so much more than that and I think people should be more mindful of the responsibilities and long term repercussions.

I offered two reasons I personally may regret not having children. I could list several others such as the pure joy of watching them grow into adults and mimic you and your partner. If you want to say that’s selfish, to bring another human into the word to experience a universe of emotion you’d otherwise never experience, I understand that perspective. No argument.

But then I offered that choosing to prioritize your own life is in and of itself a selfish act. It’s more explicitly about you than it is about another person.

Would you disagree that going out to eat by yourself is more of a selfish act than inviting a friend to eat out with you? Sharing an experience is less selfish, no?

That argument makes sense. Though I see it more from choosing to prioritize yourself and own self interests over having children and sharing a life with them as selfish too. I guess we’re all selfish one way or another.

I’m not sure you’re going to get an objective answer to this as no one has lived a life of either having kids or not having kids, hungrythirstyhorny.

I will say that, as a single male in his mid forties who has observed a good amount of life; first, the thought of not having people to rely on in you’re old age is a little worrisome; and two, not having had someone to pass my knowledge and skills down to is a little sad. However, I really enjoy the freedom and opportunities my life (and bank account) affords me.

There is always a cost to freedom. Or, as Jonis Joplin put it - freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Choosing to not have children is a selfish act. Whether “selfish” is a bad thing or not is subjective.

I would offer that anyone who’s going through life without children, find some altruistic outlet to participate in. You can otherwise find yourself wondering what your legacy may be or what the point of your life has been - aka a mid-life crisis.

You’re not helping to describe the use of “would” by adding extra words to negate the intent. “I would, but I won’t” is two statements. You’ve instead described the use of the word “but”.

Would: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/would
• a simple past tense and past participle of will
• used to express an intention or inclination
• used to express an uncertainty
• used in conditional sentences to express choice or possibility

Could: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/could
• a simple past tense of can
• used to express possibility
• used to express conditional possibility or ability
• used in asking for permission

Would / will is used when something is possible but you’re not sure.
Could / can is used when you’re not sure if something is possible. –

Relationships require the attention of your entire body and mind. If you don’t find a place or activity to refocus your attention, you’re left with a void it once occupied. Take time to appreciate what you had but set a limit for yourself to move on.

Personally, I’ve always come out of a relationship with a better understanding of myself and more motivation to be a better person. I take what I’ve learned and direct that towards self improvement, hobbies, new interests.