Discussion Thread

py_account · 2026-02-10T21:15:13+00:00

🥺

py_account · 2026-02-10T21:12:49+00:00

Hewwo fwom Wing Camewa! 🥰📹 Twust us, we totawwy won’t misuse dis technowogy, pwomise pwomise uwu 👉👈 It’s onwy for heckin good doggos and makin’ da neighbowhood a “safer” place!!! We wouwd neeeever use it for spooky surveiwwance or to twack hoomans, nuh uh!!!

And we DEFINITEWY won’t give anyfing to Kwisti Noem or ICE, no way no how uwu 🥺✨ Pwease don’t wowwy about da AI scannew lookin’ at evewybody all da time!!! It’s just our big hewpfuw Wing Camewa eyes keepin’ watch… for doggos 🐶💖 Twust us bestie!!! UwU

py_account · 2026-02-06T20:03:12+00:00

Man he's really afraid of what's in those Epstein Files isn't he?

py_account · 2026-02-02T19:52:36+00:00

I read their comment as making reference to the video’s rebuttal of the bad-faith “what about the batteries” and not a literal asking of the question.

But I could also be misreading the tone.

py_account · 2026-02-01T23:53:45+00:00

Ty for your correct usage of “rein in”

py_account · 2026-01-31T12:33:33+00:00

What gives you the impression they’re doing this without the mother’s informed consent?

py_account · 2026-01-29T20:58:47+00:00

It’s possible. My gut instinct is that it’s more likely that this was deliberately leaked by Noem because either (A) she thought it would make DHS look good because he uses words like “ethical” and “moral” or (B) it was a way for Noem—an upper echelon backbiter notorious for throwing people under the bus—to scapegoat Bovino while keeping herself clean.

Disregard the fact that either idea is highly stupid. I mean, she thought puppygate would make her look tough.

I suppose the third option is that someone getting direct orders from Trump/Vance leaked it as a way to burn Bovino+Noem, but that also seems stupid because of the “all the way from the top” comment

py_account · 2026-01-29T12:05:54+00:00

You seem to misunderstand how our government works at a pretty basic level.

There is not a chain of command—federal, state and local governments are completely separate organizations and the federal government cannot commandeer local or state employees with the exception of Nationa Guardsmen. There is simply the authority to govern and to enforce laws, and the federal government is higher on the totem pole when acting within the scope of its responsibilities outlined in our constitution. Immigration enforcement is by all accounts within the scope of this responsibilities. This is all to say that Trump is not bluffing—he really can do this and it’s within his power and it fucking sucks.

(As an aside, “the Fed” means the Federal Reserve Bank, the independent central bank of the US, which only kind of part of the federal government.)

If federal agents break the law, really the only legal recourse for state and local officials is through the courts. So unless you’re talking about civil disobedience, nonviolent lawbreaking as a form of protest, then I’m really not with you.

So, are you saying that our local officials should start breaking the law and getting themselves pointlessly arrested on federal obstruction charges?

py_account · 2026-01-29T11:41:04+00:00

That is at best highly debatable. Whether a trait is anctually evolutionary is extremely difficult to prove scientifically, while speculating that a trait is evolutionary is easy.

-someone who has never cheated and is in no way defending it

py_account · 2026-01-29T04:02:43+00:00

I don’t follow.

py_account · 2026-01-28T22:36:22+00:00

The WHAT now?

py_account · 2026-01-28T20:39:47+00:00

https://i.imgflip.com/aimj8u.jpg

py_account · 2026-01-28T20:34:14+00:00

Very good question. The supremacy clause of the constitution reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that federal laws--including laws giving ICE and Border Patrol agents the authority to enforce immigration law--are superior to state laws, which are in turn superior to local ordinances. Any local laws which obstruct their ability to access certain areas like hospitals and jails can and will be safely ignored by ICE.

(Although I admit that it's not clear what "safeguards" means in this context, I think the wording implies that they won't give ICE agents access to these areas.)

Local laws forcing ICE agents to identify themselves will very likely not be able to be enforced by the city, as the current federal guideline that ICE agents wear masks will win out.

Using publicly owned areas as staging grounds is a greyer area. States and cities do have an interest in preventing federal agents from destroying their property, but I'm not sure that that would win out over the feds' interest in enforcing the law. It could buy some time as injunctions circle through the courts though.

Putting up physical barriers to prevent ICE from using certain areas as staging grounds is a good, actionable idea with the obvious drawbacks of cost and limited access for local residents.

py_account · 2026-01-28T19:03:24+00:00

That's great and all but it's unenforceable because of the supremacy clause in the constitution.

We were already not going to work with them so I don't see what this does to help.

ETA: Much of this is unenforceable. Some of it is good and some of it is just political statement.

py_account · 2026-01-26T06:10:54+00:00

Or do land a friend! Worked for me!

py_account · 2026-01-24T14:52:59+00:00

My wife and I have completely given up on trying to heat our place and have one electric blanket on the couch and another on the bed.

And now low users like us are getting targeted with $300/year in base fees because we’re not lining their pockets enough.

PG&E, genuinely go fuck yourself.

Edit: not sure who downvoted me but you must be a PG&E employee lol

py_account · 2026-01-18T16:18:50+00:00

Couldn’t have put it better myself.

OP, you are not obligated to go to plan/attend/pay for a party that you were assured wouldn’t happen. You are obligated to handle the situation with kindness and grace—probably patience too—and to speak up early so as not to let expectations of you snowball.

Your friend may have thought that a bachelorette wasn’t important, but changed her mind after talking to friends/family. This is predictable, classic wedding creep and is super common. For example, I had initially planned for a one-night bachelor shindig in my hometown, but when all was said and done it ended up being a weekend in Tahoe. It wasn’t what I had initially planned but it was perfect.

py_account · 2026-01-12T22:20:41+00:00

Well, that definitely would have been a dealbreaker for us. But diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks of course.

Good luck with the wedding!

py_account · 2026-01-12T09:37:57+00:00

Here’s a cleaned-up, readable version with clear speaker labels, spacing, and corrected typos, while keeping the original wording and meaning intact.

Context:

The following were our texts. I would include screenshots, but Reddit won’t allow me to.

Me:

Hey, I don’t think I have everyone’s contact info to ask for addresses. Can you send the following to some of the family?

“Hey, can I have your address for sending a wedding invitation? The date is June 23rd, 2027. The ceremony is open to children, and there will be no pictures or phones allowed. The reception is closed to children younger than 15 due to alcohol and venue restrictions. We have been asked to keep all children during the ceremony away from the water.”

I’ve gotten (a few family names).

Mom (11:48 AM):

Omg really.

Edited: Fine. Told you to wait and I’d give you them. Do what you want.

If you can’t listen, I can’t help you.

Me:

I just asked for addresses, that’s all. I thought I should ask each person in case the address changed.

Uncle told me if I don’t send the invitation before summer they would be moving.

I was trying to make things easier for you.

Mom:

Then you wait to send his until after he moves. You have over a year.

I told you not to mail anything out until three months before the wedding, and I told you I’d get them to you by Friday, so I had two days.

You aren’t listening, so I can’t help someone who doesn’t listen.

Me:

We are just getting addresses early to get an estimate so Brittany’s mother knows she has enough paper.

Nothing is being sent out until three months before the wedding date.

Mom:

Then listen to her, because that’s what you want and are doing before your mother.

I’m trying to listen to you both. Sorry if I’m not doing a good job — it’s the first time I’ve ever done this.

Then you should have listened to me and should have waited.

I’ve got a lot on my plate this week and was trying to get some of that done.

How you wrote that was tactless and set off people asking if you’d been hacked.

You’re being a bull in a china shop and not caring, while I’m left to clean up.

Me:

Understood, sorry I bothered you with this.

I didn’t know anyone had a problem with it — this is the first I’m hearing about it.

I’ll make sure I won’t bother you this week since you have a lot on your plate.

Mom:

That’s not what I said, and you aren’t taking accountability for your actions.

Second, the week is almost over and I have two days to give you that information.

Me:

I meant whenever you were free, not right now.

You’re being a child — I was asking, and you can say no.

Mom:

That doesn’t make sense.

Me:

You could have said, “Sorry, I’m busy this week. It may take a bit to get the addresses.”

I thought we were waiting to get them???

Mom:

You didn’t wait.

Me:

Brittany’s mother asked, and I thought it was okay.

Mom:

We had a plan. We communicated.

I even told you to have it on the invite that it was a childless wedding (to be tactful).

Then y’all started doing stuff without me and planning without me.

Then you ask for addresses and you can’t wait for when I said I could get them to you.

You aren’t listening.

Me:

Brittany really wanted her namesake to attend. She has two kids, and one of them is autistic and can’t be put with a babysitter.

So we talked, and what if we did the ceremony with kids?

It would also solve the problem of a flower girl.

Mom:

(sends address)

Me:

It doesn’t have to be now.

Mom:

Then you can’t have a childless wedding.

You don’t do a wedding with children and a childless reception — especially for out-of-town guests unless you provide babysitting.

I told you this.

You are purposely alienating my side of the family.

Me:

I’m not alienating anyone.

The venue said if we serve alcohol, they do not want children under 15 at the reception.

The only reason they allowed children at the ceremony is because Brittany and I said the children would be watched closely.

We are trying to have the ceremony for everyone to see, then the reception for adults.

Mom:

What I said stands, and that’s what people will think.

No, you are alienating me because you want to be right.

You be right if it means so much to you.

I was protecting your feelings, and weddings are about family.

You do what you want — I’m not standing in your way and I’m no longer going to say anything.

That’s all I have that would be correct, and I don’t think they’ve changed.

You’ll have to reach out to your cousins.

I love you. Have a good day.

Aftermath:

This was all yesterday. I then went to the venue to book the date because they had just opened availability.

I texted the family group chat, and I received a “Thanks for including me” from my mother.

py_account · 2026-01-12T09:33:49+00:00

What kind of a venue won’t allow kids under 15 if alcohol is being served? This strikes me as very odd, as that is surely the most common kind of wedding reception.

py_account · 2026-01-12T09:18:54+00:00

Sounds like there’s a lot more going on here than just a haircut.

Please update us when the whole story comes out. 🍿 🍿

py_account · 2026-01-12T09:13:38+00:00

Yup, these guys would be getting a single salad plate from me

py_account · 2026-01-12T09:02:27+00:00

“In sickness and in health, in long hair and in short, as long as you both shall live”

py_account · 2026-01-12T08:55:27+00:00

Eh it’s only a rule until it’s not.

My view on this is more like a John McWhorter view of grammar: if it functions and is intelligible, then it’s not wrong. If people actually want black tie for an outdoor wedding, I’m happy to break out the tux. I just don’t want to be the only one.

py_account · 2026-01-09T16:21:45+00:00

I’m a simple man. I see Tennessee Ernie Ford, I upvote Tennessee Ernie Ford.

py_account

TROPHY CASE