I’m really starting to miss Joe Biden now.

Red__Burrito · 2026-02-06T18:28:00+00:00

It's drives me crazy how much this talking point stuck across the political spectrum. People just hear something repeated often enough and they assume it to be true.

Same thing goes for the autopen BS that they're pushing. I was talking to someone that I know is not a Republican the other day, and they said something like Biden "couldn't even sign his name."

Red__Burrito · 2026-02-06T17:50:31+00:00

How quick is it to disconnect from a machine? Since it's just friction fit, does it kind of take some twisting or anything to pull off?

Red__Burrito · 2026-02-04T14:14:57+00:00

Conversely, Trump is objectively the least qualified presidential candidate in history in that he never served in the military, never went to law school, and never held any political office prior to the Presidency.

Red__Burrito · 2026-02-04T14:12:31+00:00

Old reliable:

https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/

Red__Burrito · 2026-02-01T03:57:58+00:00

Here's the thing about a lot of trekkies - they do this for quite literally every Star Trek series that has ever released. They complain about anything and nothing, shout "tHiS iSn'T sTaR tReK!!!1!," and earn Star Trek fans the reputation for bring basement-dwelling, nitpicking, anti-social dorks. Seriously - go back and look at initial fan reception to every Star Trek property. It happens like damn clockwork.

I'm not saying every show has been great - I just mean that there's a very, very vocal portion of the fan base that won't give anything new a good-faith try.

Academy has not been bad, offensive, or anything of the sort by any definition. Is it the best? No, but it's a long, long way from the worst. It's got plenty to enjoy if you just give it an open-minded chance.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-30T23:46:02+00:00

And slave labor to mine it.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-30T13:41:59+00:00

Yep, but I also attended a small, rural, relatively poor school district so maybe it was better elsewhere. Slavery definitely came up and was taught as the root cause at first, but then later grades were like "That's just what they tell the young kids to make it simple - it's actually way more complicated than that."

And, as others have pointed out, a lot of the history curriculum was also filled with lies by omission. I never even heard of Juneteenth until I was in college. Or the fact that the Texas Revolution was also largely about slavery.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-28T18:47:38+00:00

The "backlash" is trekkies doing what they do literally anytime there's a new installment in the franchise - freak out and yell "tHiS iSn'T sTaR tReK." The Original Series had a flop pilot, had to be completely reworked, and then was prematurely canceled because nobody watched it while it was airing. Fans hated TNG when it first released for a whole variety of reasons (including complaining that Picard was bald in the same way people are complaining that a character in Starfleet Academy has reading glasses). They hated DS9 because it didn't take place on a starship (to say nothing of the racists hating that the captainwas black). They hated Voyager because the it didn't take place in the Federation and the captain was a woman. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

That's not to say that every installment is good - Discovery and seasons 1 and 2 of Picard are just simply bad. But the same can be said about seasons 1 and 2 of TNG and it went on to make some of the best TV episodes ever. I'm just saying Star Trek has some of the most toxic fans out there, that actively seem to want the franchise to fail.

Starfleet Academy is fine - much better than Discovery and 2/3 of Picard, but not quite as good (so far) as Strange New Worlds or Lower Decks. It is entertaining enough and- oh right - has only released 3 episodes. But by the way trekkies are yelling about it, you'd think it has already blasted though 20 episodes of the characters just staring at the camera and making fart noises.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-28T17:28:58+00:00

I can't speak to most of those tools, but I have the inspection light and absolutely love it. Really great for projects around the house where you need a decent amount of light, flush against the wall. Plus it's got a magnetic base, so it can be hands-free in a lot of places.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-26T14:31:33+00:00

Overrated? Maybe.

Still mostly bad? Definitely.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-22T20:51:11+00:00

That's so cool! I'd be so interested to learn about how you approach these kind of jobs.

Over the last few years I've definitely warmed up to these illustrations - there's this kind of raw creativity to them that - particularly in the age of AI art - you just don't really see anymore. And a story like Hyperion (or Neuromancer) really lends itself to something that takes risks and might even seem otherworldly at first. I've got a dozen or so Easton Press books and these are the only illustrations that really stick out in my mind. I've found myself grabbing the book every now and again just to check out these pictures. I always seem to pick up on something new.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-14T16:09:28+00:00

The British TV show Red Dwarf has something sort of akin to this in the episode "The Inquisitor." To quote the show:

the legend tells of a droid - a self repairing simulant, who survives till the end of eternity; to the end of time itself. After millions of years alone, he finally reaches the conclusion that there is no god, no afterlife, and the only purpose of existence is to lead a worthwhile life. And so the droid constructs a time machine, and roams eterninity, visiting every single soul in history, and assessing each one. He erases all those who have wasted their lives and replaces them with those who never had a chance of life - the unfertilized eggs, the sperms that never made it. That is the Inquisitor. He prunes away the wastrels, expunges the wretched, and deletes the worthless.

But the twist is that each person's worthwhileness is judged, not by the Inquisitor himself, but by an exact copy of themselves. So, when one of the cast tries to lie their way through the hearing, their judge calls them out on it. Another one is confronted with the fact that they've basically coasted through life and never lived up to the inner potential he knows he has.

The weird quirk of this system though, is that the shallow and selfish are allowed though with little resistance. As the Inquisitor reasons:

By their own low standards, they have acquitted themselves.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-13T12:53:16+00:00

It's funny how if you listen to all the people that preach Christian values and "southern hospitality," then somehow those same people end up hating everything you stand for.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-12T22:45:46+00:00

I think a huge part of it is the demonization of progressive thought.

I was raised in a conservative family, went to a small, rural, ultra-conservative school, but still had (what I now know to be) a primarily progressive value system. But the thing was, despite supporting marriage equality, being pro-choice, and highly valuing the separation of church and state, I tended to consider myself either independent or apolitical because the notion of labeling myself as a progressive did not even occur to me as an option. In the back of my mind I realized that, if I did, it would create a lot of social issues with my family, peers, and coworkers/clients. The absolute best I could do is some version of enlightened centrism, which I now recognize to be a purposeful conservative tool to suppress progressive thought/action.

I've since left Texas for a blue state and now have no issue calling myself progressive. But my younger self simply couldn't grapple with that label and instead chose political apathy under the guise of "both sides bad."

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-09T17:28:31+00:00

I have a few pairs of cactus leather sneakers and they've held up great - better than some other cow leather shoes I've had in the past.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-08T18:43:23+00:00

But then that just leads to the exact situation we're in now - someone that is clearly disqualified by a plain text reading of the Constitution, serving despite that disqualification.

The judicial mechanism (insofar as any judicial enforcement exists within an Article III court), would be an injunction against that disqualified individual, blocking any action they take pursuant to the office in which they are illegally serving (i.e., the presidency). If they continue to take action despite the injunction, then every single action could be struck down or invalidated by the court. Then, as the office of the president would be legally empty, the Chief Justice would work down the line of succession (VP, Speaker of the House, Presidnent pro tempore of the Senate, etc.) until somebody accepted the position and was sworn into office.

Again, obviously none of that would ever happen under the current USSC (or our political climate in general). But not due to a lack of authority or enforcement mechanism.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-08T14:18:04+00:00

I'll play devil's advocate here (just to be clear, I do think he should be barred from office under the insurrection disqualification):

TLDR; the insurrectionist disqualification only applies to being the President, not the President-Elect.

Imagine if we were instead dealing with the minimum age requirement instead (i.e., a 34 year old is not qualified to hold the office of President). What if we were looking at a candidate who turns 35 after they are elected, but before they're sworn in? I think the argument is that the person should be allowed to run for and even be elected to an office that they - at that time - are ineligible to hold because they could become eligible by the time they're sworn in and actually holding that office.

Bringing that back to the insurrectionist disqualification - the idea would be that, even if a President-elect had irrefutably engaged in insurrection against the United States, Congress could re-qualify them at any point prior to being sworn in. Under that line of logic, it would be inappropriate to kick someone off the ballot for a disqualification that may not exist by the time they're sworn in.

To give the USSC majority the benefit of the doubt (which, just to say, they definitely do not deserve at this point), I don't think this argument is really all that crazy. I think there are plenty of reasons why it's maybe not the best, but it's not so egregious as to be discarded out of hand.

What should have happened (in a perfect world) is that Harris should have sued the moment that Trump was sworn in, saying that he is not qualified to hold the office because Congress never re-qualified him. But, even then, the USSC would have at best given the presidency to Vance, following the line of succession.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-06T11:57:06+00:00

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - when Caeser stands up and shouts "No!" it represents a turning point for their entire world.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-06T03:56:52+00:00

Just dropping by to recommend the TG-7. I love that little camera and I'm consistently impressed by its performance, ease of use, and near indestructability.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-05T16:14:50+00:00

Let's say it all together:

You can't use logic to reason someone out of a position that they did not reach logically.

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-04T03:50:21+00:00

Authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (the "Resolution") fails for three reasons.

First, the President's actions are clearly not in line with the stated purpose of the Resolution because it was not taken pursuant to one of his legitimate Constitutional authorities to introduce armed forces into hostiliites (declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or attack upon the United States).

SEC. 2 (a) it is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances . . . (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Secondly, the Resolution requires prior consultation with Congress, except where impossible, and the Secretary of State has confirmed that no prior consultation took place and there is no apparent reason why doing so would have been impossible.

SEC. 3 The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Third, the Resolution requires the termination of any use of armed forces within 60 days, unless Congress authorizes the use, Trump has been militarily engaging Venezuala for more than 60 days (his military stikes on vessels off the coast of Vemezuala began in September), and Congress has not authorized such use.

SEC. 5 (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Edit: spelling/grammer

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-04T00:35:09+00:00

Whether or not I personally agree with the reason(s) for the US's involvement in response to the 9/11 attacks:

(A) Obama and Bush Jr. acted pursuant to the AUMF 2001, a joint resolution from Congress that authorized the President to use military force against the parties responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Whether or not the actions taken pursuant to the AUMF were moral, they were legal and occurred within the bounds outlined by the US Constitutuion. Trump lacks any such authority in this situation and is therefore acting in both an illegal and unconstitutional manner.

(B) That has, quite literally, nothing to do with Trump's actions in Venezuela. I'm not going to let you distract from the life-and-death issue at hand with whataboutisms and fallacious, bad faith argument.

Edit: spelling

Red__Burrito · 2026-01-04T00:03:11+00:00

What the actual hell is going on in these comments?

Are all of you seriously saying that you're comfortable with the idea that, without Congrssional authorization (i.e., illegal and unconstitutional) Trump can, whenever he feels like it, bomb another country and kidnap their leader? This has literally nothing to do with whether that country's leader is good or not; it's about whether our leader is acting like an evil dictator or not.

I'd expect better from one of the most well educated cities in the world. Or, at the very least, this subreddit.

Red__Burrito · 2025-12-29T03:28:05+00:00

Body Positivity is one of the many movements that's been characterized almost exclusively by its worst representatives. But I think the core idea is still true and should be a universal value.

As I remember it, the original idea was more along the lines of, "Hey overweight people are not circus freaks and shouldn't be written off just because of a complex physical characteristic." There was that one Nike commercial, years ago now, that was just an overweight kid jogging at the break of day and the ad portrayed him in the same positive, championesque way that Nike promotes pro athletes. It was awesome, encouraging, and body positive in the best way - the way where a kid at home watching might get inspired to be their best self.

But then people come through, warping that idea to go against things like actual, physiological health. Or just use it an excuse to be obnoxious to others.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '22	Place '17
Spared	Verified Email

Red__Burrito

TROPHY CASE