What in the fuck are you talking about.

You think there were people pretending to be gay because it was trendy?

If that’s how your brain works I guess you’re bi? Attraction is physical, no?

Body dysmorphia is a symptom of the underlying condition which IMO are yet unclassified forms of NCAH. It’s not a delusion or a mental disorder or whatever the fuck you’re inferring with your vile rhetoric. Their developing brains in the womb are exposed to spiking cortisol, low basal cortisol, high androgens and female hormones. This is why they’re often bendy and autistic too. (And all the other things in this cluster - hyperactive, hypersensitive, hyper-reactive, hypermobile & immunological)

Don’t think this will fly

Majority of white women voted for Trump. Abusive relationship no doubt, but she was probably into it.

Check the author ;)

Description I was replying to here said former politician, thanks for sharing though

Hollywood producer: Harvey Weinstein (photographed with Epstein/Maxwell)

Royal prince: Prince Andrew (named in 2024 docs, Giuffre accusations, settled 2022)

Music industry figure: Michael Jackson (in 2024 docs, met at Epstein’s home, died 2009)

Prominent banker: Jes Staley (former Barclays CEO, close Epstein ties, fined 2023)

Government official: Bill Richardson (former NM Governor, Giuffre accusation, died 2023)

Former politician: Bill Clinton (in 2024 docs, flew on Epstein’s plane, denies crimes)

Italian car company owner: Piero Ferrari (Ferrari vice chairman, speculative via elite ties)

Rock star: Chris Evans or Mick Jagger (flight logs, rumored island visits)

Magician: David Copperfield (in 2024 docs, Sjoberg testimony, 2007 FBI probe)

Six billionaires: Les Wexner, Leon Black, Glenn Dubin, Tom Pritzker, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates (all in docs, deny wrongdoing)

Canadian billionaire: Frank Giustra (in docs, flight logs, Clinton Foundation donor)

It’s David Copperfield I believe.

They published that Kirk’s high-school friend said he was a leftist (gave no details), then later retracted it because he said he couldn’t actually remember.

Maybe they should’ve corroborated that with some more of his friends before unleashing that?

There’s no evidence there was a Nazi parliamentary groups committing mass murder. Which is why the UN court ordered Russia to halt its invasion and did not accept genocide claims against Ukraine when Russia used that narrative as a pretext.

The war in Donbas began in 2014, long before the 2022 invasion, and by 31 December 2021 about 14,200 to 14,400 people had been killed, including at least 3,404 civilians; most civilian harm came in 2014 to 2015 and fell sharply after the Minsk ceasefire periods.

Some Ukrainian volunteer units with far right members existed, most notably Azov and Aidar; credible groups documented serious abuses by certain fighters from these units in 2014, and they urged Kyiv to investigate and bring them under firm command. Those findings support claims of abuses, not a claim of large scale Nazi formations carrying out mass murder

Kyiv moved to integrate volunteer battalions into formal structures and to prosecute rogues such as the Tornado unit; this shows problems were real, and also shows state action against them rather than official sponsorship of systematic killing of civilians.

Tried to use gpt5 via the api the other day and they wanted me to scan my passport. 🫠

But they will be beneficiaries of what arises out the ashes.

Glad it’s yous and not us. GL

Weaponised incompetence

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49344563

Here it’s just a months rent for security deposit and you pay as normal in a rolling monthly contract. The deposit needs to be held in an independent thingie too so they can’t keep it unlawfully.

Application fees? For renting? Man America is cooked.

Videos of him saying enigma on his campaign trail so it is in his vocabulary.

It could also be a cryptic anagram he picked up from Epstein for Gamines.

Removed by mod

Irish / Celtic population is known for being curly too

Sir 48% of voters approve of trumps actions so far. Those red state AGs will be championed for selectively applying the constitution as Trump sees fit. I’d expect prayer in schools and banning of protest will be the first to go.

? I didn’t. I repeated the same thing I’ve been saying for the past 5 comments and the dissenting opinion from Jackson. Even the site you linked me says it applies as I’ve stated so wtf are you talking about? Are you a bad AI?

The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.

It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions

Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.

Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.

Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.