Disenfranchised Human

5.8K posts

Disenfranchised Human banner
Disenfranchised Human

Disenfranchised Human

@HypergolicMrs

เข้าร่วม Haziran 2019
454 กำลังติดตาม210 ผู้ติดตาม
swim
swim@ybtweetz·
@HypergolicMrs @SuboptimalAGI @SteezyyTommyy @AndriaDont99498 County shelters do low cost because they don't care about the animals as pets and patients, they are simply numbers that don't need to grow more. If a stay dies, so what? If your beloved pet dies, well, you get what you pay for.
English
2
0
1
16
Iliftfordoughnuts
Iliftfordoughnuts@AndriaDont99498·
Why is is always " Don't get a pet if you can't afford it " And never - Vets are predatory and there's no reason for a neuter to cost $500.
English
862
706
13.8K
520.8K
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
@SuboptimalAGI @SteezyyTommyy @AndriaDont99498 There are no lab fees/pharmaceutical costs for a standard surgical sterilization. The antibiotics and nsaids used for recovery are cheap. If it were truly that expensive, county animal shelters wouldn’t be charging $50 adoption fees for animals the county paid to sterilize.
English
2
0
2
83
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
My oldest cat is 11. Life happens. I could afford him when I got him. I couldn’t afford a vet bill 8 years ago when I had brain aneurysm surgery and mountains of medical bills. Thankfully, he didn’t get sick or need vet care that year. Financial hardship hits most pet owners at some point.
English
1
0
12
336
K J Gillenwater
K J Gillenwater@kjgillenwater·
You can do something about the first: don't get a pet. You can't do something about the second: make vets lower their prices for you. You have to deal with the reality of the world, not the dream world you wish existed. An animal is going to be dependent on you...to not have the money to treat it when needed is cruel.
English
16
2
254
29.1K
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
@jaderants I respect that. I definitely didn’t enjoy shows with romance when I was little though. Just action/adventure, horror, and Nick at Night classics.
English
0
0
0
29
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
No reason to be contentious here. It’s a pretty benign topic. Girls can enjoy action shows without romance and without being a tomboy. I thought the OP made a valid point. Girls enjoy action/adventure shows too, and it’s cool to see more shows portraying girls as heroes instead of always the damsel in distress.
English
0
0
0
12
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
Life360 is an essential when you have a family, especially teenagers. The only time I stalk my husband’s location is when he’s on his way home so I can time dinner to be hot and ready when he gets home. The rest is just notifications that let me know they get to their destinations safely. A trusted/trusting partner wouldn’t need to keep their location private from their SO.
English
0
0
0
49
JayDinglenutsTTV
JayDinglenutsTTV@JayDinglenuts·
@HazelAppleyard I agree with her. You are a sus POS is what it sounds like to me. My girl asked for us both to share our location mutually and I agreed without hesitation. We have our locations on snap and on life360 so we know when we both get to work ECT.
English
1
0
5
213
Hazel Appleyard
Hazel Appleyard@HazelAppleyard·
I would not mind being tracked by a partner as it would make me feel safer, personally. But insisting on tracking someone who doesn’t want it? Hard no.
Hazel Appleyard tweet media
English
27
1
96
3.7K
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
That’s wife treatment, not girlfriend treatment. My husband, teenage son, and I share location at all times. Husband wants to know my location because I’m disabled and he worries about me when I have to leave the house. It lets me know he got to work safely. When I know where he’s gone for lunch, I know what not to make for dinner. When he leaves work, I know when to start cooking. When my son leaves, I know where he is, know if he’s driving safely, and get notifications if there’s a collision. If there’s not a ring on the finger, she has to accept no for an answer. He also has to accept that’ll probably undermine her trust.
English
0
0
9
241
SeeingMount Replies
SeeingMount Replies@SMReplies·
Have executives gotten over the little girls don't like action cartoons thing yet
SeeingMount Replies tweet mediaSeeingMount Replies tweet media
English
22
229
3.1K
89.4K
Trey🙂‍↔️💙
Trey🙂‍↔️💙@Treshy__xo·
@itsnwts Give him grace. 5days is too small extend it to like 1month maybe he’s busy with work
English
2
0
6
668
‏ً
‏ً@itsnwts·
SERIOUS QUESTION: How many days is acceptable to not hear from someone you're dating? Because it has now been 5 days and I'm ready to text this man “Have a good life.”
English
2.2K
99
5.8K
850.6K
Steven Huffman
Steven Huffman@Poeslawisalive·
@itsnwts I met my current wife on a Saturday. Didn’t text her until the following Friday.
English
13
0
13
5.2K
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
@itsnwts After 5 days, if he’s not dealing with some family or life crisis, he’s not into you.
English
0
0
2
87
goma
goma@soigomaa·
This might be controversial but why can the transgender community safely take high doses of estrogen or testosterone, but a menopausal woman is told no because it causes cancer, heart attacks or stroke?
Chaos@kizzriee

Hot take:

English
666
1.4K
38.2K
3.7M
Hamid Khan
Hamid Khan@Hamids_Crypto·
@ianmiles then why your under teens are ready to be suckedxxx are thy babies thy don't have mind ?
English
1
0
0
87
Ian Miles Cheong
Ian Miles Cheong@ianmiles·
It's never ending, Mohammed Ali Khan from Pakistan attempting to r*pe a British child. He claimed he didn't know it was illegal because he was new to the country. Death penalty.
English
65
282
1.1K
15.2K
heretical lakeloon
heretical lakeloon@loonlake55·
Too many young people are resenting Boomers, claiming that Boomers had it " easy " financially in their youth. Here are a few fun facts about growing up Boomer. 1. Almost everyone grew up with one bathroom. Mom, Dad and all 3-6 siblings. 2. If you did get to take a vacation, you drove. With no air conditioning. No cup holders. No iPads. Just black vinyl seats and bologna sandwiches. 3. There were no club sports. No Parks and Rec activities. Summer camp was for rich kids. Get yourself a bike, a stick and a few friends. If you were bored, you laid in the grass and looked at clouds. 4. You ate what was served. Even if it was chicken livers. No DoorDash, no backup Totino's rolls. 5. No AP classes, no PSEO, no "fun" elective. They assigned you to a class. You went. You did what they asked. Or else. 6. Unless you had rich parents, you had a nice VFW wedding. Maybe rent a room at a modest hotel. 7. Most Boomers got their first pedi and mani in their 50s (when their feet got farther away). We didn't even know people got massages in real life, only in Hollywood. 8. You packed your own lunch for decades. 9. No one knew what red light therapy was, a facial, a spa day, or a cold plunge. Your gym was the YMCA. Usually in a rather old building. 10. We grew up with 18 percent inflation, 14 percent mortgage rates, 3 million continuing unemployment claims, and 200 other applicants competing for the same job. Now, this is not to say Millenials and Gen Z have it easy or don't face problems. It's just to say, nobody has it easy or doesn't face problems. My only hope, as my mom would say, is I live long enough to see my kids' kids complain about how easy they had it!
English
1.7K
2.5K
12.5K
2.7M
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
@Questergirl @LolOut160461 @AAGDhillon The Constitution is absolutely not a living document. The framers explicitly stated it’s intended to be interpreted according to its fixed meaning at the time of adoption and the people’s understanding of each amendment at the time it was ratified. Period.
English
0
0
0
14
AAGHarmeetDhillon
AAGHarmeetDhillon@AAGDhillon·
There’s literally a chair set up at SCOTUS for our presidents to sit in for oral argument. Your separation of powers nonsense is more imitation pearl-clutching hauteur.
Kathryn Watson@kathrynw5

If President Trump attends the Supreme Court's oral arguments tomorrow on his birthright citizenship executive order like he says he will, he would be the first sitting president on record to do so. Presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers.

English
1.5K
8K
37.3K
2.3M
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
@Questergirl @LolOut160461 @AAGDhillon The conversation wasn’t about whether or not he’d win. Never was. I didn’t, and don’t know whether or not he’ll when. I do know, the author of the birthright citizenship amendment said this.
Disenfranchised Human tweet media
English
1
0
0
13
Questergirl (Cancer sucks)
Questergirl (Cancer sucks)@Questergirl·
@HypergolicMrs @LolOut160461 @AAGDhillon I was showing you just how badly it went for Trump. They don't need journalists there, the oral arguments are broadcast while they happen so that we know exactly what happened. Sauer is a waste of time lawyer, and Trump is not going to win this.
English
2
0
0
14
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
If there’s no journalist there, and no cameras allowed in the courtroom, how can they report that Trump “stormed out”. The journalists that were there reported nothing of the sort. You stick with your hyper partisan, many times discredited sources. I’ll finish listening to, and reading the transcript of the oral argument to form my open opinion instead of relying on media to tell me what my opinion should be.
English
1
0
0
13
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
Ineffective pivot from the actual discussion at hand. Hyper partisan sources like Daily Beast and Occupy Democrats go right in the trash. They had no journalists present. The journalists that were present said no such thing. Listen to the oral argument, read the transcript, or go somewhere else. Just listened to the oral argument, along with reading the transcript. The “draw dropping” exchange isn’t draw dropping at all. Sauer essentially says under the Administrations test, yes, they are citizens. Under historical congressional debates they were not. Gorsuch repeatedly interrupted Sauer (which is totally fine), but that’s why the transcript looks wonky. But again, the conversation was never about the context of the oral argument itself. It was about Trump’s presence, which played out as a non-issue.
Disenfranchised Human tweet media
English
1
0
0
9
Questergirl (Cancer sucks)
Questergirl (Cancer sucks)@Questergirl·
Occupy Democrats@OccupyDemocrats

BREAKING: Trump’s birthright citizenship scheme implodes after lawyer’s JAW-DROPPING courtroom blunder about Native Americans. Donald Trump sent his top lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue that birthright citizenship should be stripped from hundreds of thousands of American-born babies. It went so badly that his own solicitor general nearly argued Native Americans aren't citizens either — and had to be rescued by a Trump-appointed justice. In one of the most jaw-dropping exchanges of Wednesday's already disastrous hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch — appointed by Trump himself — pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the logical consequences of the administration's own legal theory. The exchange was as stunning as it was revealing. Gorsuch asked a simple question: under the administration's proposed test for birthright citizenship, are Native Americans born today automatically citizens? Sauer's answer was a slow-motion legal train wreck. First, he said yes — obviously. Then Gorsuch pushed him to set aside the statutes granting Native Americans citizenship and answer based purely on the administration's own constitutional theory. Sauer's answer changed: "No." Under the 1868 congressional debates, he explained, children of tribal Indians were not considered birthright citizens. The courtroom went quiet. Gorsuch pressed harder. But under your test — the domicile test you want this court to adopt today — are tribal Native Americans born on U.S. soil birthright citizens? Sauer fumbled. "I think so... I have to think that through, but that's my reaction." "I'll take the yes," Gorsuch replied — essentially throwing the solicitor general a life preserver before he could drown any further. Let's be absolutely clear about what just happened. The Trump administration walked into the highest court in the land with a legal theory so sweeping, so poorly thought through, that when a justice applied it logically, the government's own lawyer couldn't guarantee that Native Americans — people whose nations existed on this continent thousands of years before the United States did — would qualify as birthright citizens. This is the constitutional chaos that Trump's executive order invites. Once you start unraveling the 14th Amendment's guarantee that all persons born on American soil are citizens, there is no clean stopping point. The administration's own lawyer proved that in real time, in front of the entire nation, while Trump was still in the building — before he turned tail and fled. The 14th Amendment was written to be clear precisely because America had already lived through the horror of deciding that some people born here weren't really citizens. The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship for 157 years. And Trump's lawyer just demonstrated, in spectacular fashion, exactly why those 157 years of precedent exist. Please like and share this post if you believe the Constitution means what it says — for everyone born on American soil.

QME
1
0
0
25
Disenfranchised Human
Disenfranchised Human@HypergolicMrs·
I read it. It’s just garbage in, garbage out AI if you actually look into the non-existent history of it. Sure, it’s unprecedented, but so what. Try to find any reference to this unwritten rule with any mention of perceived judicial interference or influence cited by any public official, or anyone at all prior to Oct of last year. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist. It’s just a recently created media driven narrative. One could also assume that presidents haven’t historically attended because when Washington went to the newly formed SCOTUS for constitutional clarification/advice his request was rejected, and so were other requests from early presidents, and presidents didn’t bother with SCOTUS after that precedent was set. We could also assume past presidents haven’t attended due to busy schedules, non-vested interest in SCOTUS hearings because they can blame SCOTUS for negative political outcomes and their hands are clean. We could assume plenty of things. It makes no sense that any public person can attend SCOTUS hearings on a first come, first serve basis except the President. By that logic, legislators should be held to the same standard, but they aren’t. His presence created no security or logistical issues. His presence did not disrupt the proceeding at all, so that argument is already out the window. The Justices didn’t even acknowledge his presence in the room. Justices are hand selected, thoroughly vetted, and should be free of influence from everyone and everything except the Constitution and court precedent. You can determine that yourself by reading their past opinions. If they have bias that doesn’t align with the Constitution, you can blame the president that nominated a bad judge and the senate that confirmed them. There is no legitimate separation of powers issue here, because the president never performed the duty of a judicial. Even if he did have some kind of vague influence simply by being present, that’s not illegal and doesn’t violate Separation of powers. He silently attended to hear his team’s argument on a case that he, and many Americans find important, then left. He didn’t even stay to listen to the opposing argument. Big whoop. It was all above board. Sorry you don’t like it.
English
2
0
0
32