Hacksaw

Those doctors are cowards. They can't jail ALL the doctors, it would be a disaster. They need a union or something. I don't know ANYTHING is better than letting kids die!

US government gutted manufacturing? Last I checked companies chasing endless profit did that. Then when the government tried to stop them they used their money and power to elect a government that let them outsource US jobs to China. They've been rolling in money ever since.

This is exactly what Disney is trying to do by throwing an ex employee under the bus.

If people's lives depend on your systems, and your systems can be undermined by a single person and not caught for years, then you're playing with people's lives.

Secondly, even if this was the case, how could they possibly justify trying to get out of being accountable by saying she signed away her rights by using a free month of Disney+?

This is just Disney moving on to their next bullshit excuse to not pay after the first one didn't work.

Nah. Nobody needs mob justice for this. Mob justice isn't justice at all. It's just crowd funded tyranny.

That's not really how roundabouts work. In 2 lane roundabouts the outside lanes have mandatory exits where the inside lane can exit as well (since the outside lane cannot continue, there is no accident risk). In some roundabouts the inside lane becomes the outside lane at these junctures. At others the incoming outside lane takes over as the outside lane.

In any case, when entering a roundabout there is signage which tell you which lane can do what, so you only have to enter the roundabout in a lane that goes where you want.

This is no different than any other intersection, you have to be in a lane that goes where you want and you shouldn't change lanes in an intersection. It's illegal in many provinces and counterindicated in others.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-is-it-illegal-to-change-lanes-in-the-middle-of-an-intersection/

That's a shit take and you know it. The Taliban isn't something that they let win because they weren't motivated enough. The Taliban was better funded and better organized than the government army.

The "voting public" deciding a candidate is above the law isn't democratic.

The courts are not a democratic institution, they're there to apply the laws passed by a democratically elected government in a fair and impartial manner.

Sure the laws should be subject to the will of the people, but the application of the law should not. That's nonsense.

Saying it's dangerous to apply a law everyone agrees with to a politician who committed crimes is absurd.

Thanks for the response, now I KNOW you're just a Trumptard playing "Devils advocate".

You're right though, my comment is an overgeneralisation, but it's focusing on how assholes bully nds. I'm not saying NDs can't be assholes, or that NTs are assholes all the time.

This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren't publicly auditable so you'll never know who they're sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?

You're comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it's the government that you can't trust?

Sorry, I have to say I'm completely baffled by your statements right now.

That's true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they're sharing data with advertisers.

I think probably the opposite of anything? Maybe I flipped an acronym or two by accident?

The half the country that disagrees isn't disagreeing with the laws Trump broke and voting to repeal them. If they were, your argument would have standing. Trump wins, those laws get repealed, no one ever has to be subject to these unjust laws. In a scenario where someone was campaigning to legalize pot nationally but was in court for possession you would be 100% correct.

However, this half the country wants those laws to continue to apply to everyone else, but not to apply to Trump, one of the most corrupt, self serving people ever to hold office. The whole country agrees that those laws should exist (fraud, sexual assault, corruption, election interference, insurrection). Half the country thinks Trump should just be above the law, and you can't have democracy when the law treats people differently.

Your argument sounds logical on the surface, but it's deeply flawed to the point where it's almost suspicious in its dishonestly.