mister_monster

@[email protected]

46zFAv8KHaKVuYDTJ15TXAah6SCXw88Dx9UhTuUJa6ydb8m9uGLaYE3AX5JPFhsJjJ6w7NMc7vNYwQPhGkt3tE2L7pwgrte

npub1m5s9w4t03znyetxswhgq0ud7fq8ef8y3l4kscn2e8wkvmv42hh3qujgjl3

codeberg.org/mister_monster

09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

kde , to KDE
@kde@floss.social avatar

Amarok, KDE's legendary music player, is out with version 3.0.1.

https://blogs.kde.org/2024/06/02/amarok-3.0.1-released/

@kde

mister_monster , (edited )

It's cool. But the music player landscape has changed so much, I just don't need library features and what not anymore. I find myself just queueing things in MPV using a terminal in a directory full of music, launching playlists and stuff. I've tried a ton of music players for Linux, from Amarok to Cmus, and I find that it's all cruft and all you need is a media player and at best a file manager.

How right-wing groups are plotting to implement Trump's authoritarianism ( www.motherjones.com )

There is an authoritarian danger that threatens American democracy. It is a separate peril from Donald Trump and his tens of millions of rabid supports. It is the right-wing infrastructure that is publicly plotting to undermine the checks and balances of our constitutional order and concentrate unprecedented power in the...

mister_monster ,

Lol checks and balances, said the people trying to pack the supreme court.

mister_monster ,

We are using two definitions of packing. In my view, and the common view when the term has been used, nominating and confirming replacements for open seats on the court is not called “packing”. Adding new seats because you don’t like the make up of the court is what people usually mean when they use the word.

mister_monster ,

We are using two definitions of packing. In my view, and the common view when the term has been used, nominating and confirming replacements for open seats on the court is not called “packing”. Adding new seats because you don’t like the make up of the court is what people usually mean when they use the word.

mister_monster ,

Sure.

time.com/6127193/supreme-court-reform-expansion/

theguardian.com/…/us-supreme-court-abortion-roe-v…

npr.org/…/the-case-for-court-packing-as-a-way-to-…

harvardpolitics.com/pack-the-court/

nbcnews.com/…/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-sup…

I think that should suffice. I don’t normally respond to “source?” but this one was easy, all on the front page of a search, and only a few.

mister_monster ,

You asked who was talking about it. That looks like a big propaganda push to normalize the idea. And besides, that last link negates what you said anyway.

mister_monster ,

It all started with the legalize marijuana movement, now we are here.

Do you want local governance or top down governance from a thousand miles away? At what distance does it become colonialism? States are not required to enforce federal law, they just can’t violate the constitution.

mister_monster ,

You can’t be this thick.

States not enforcing federal law. Legal weed was the first real test of States not enforcing federal law. Now states are refusing to enforce all sorts of federal laws.

How is it fascist to not enforce laws?

mister_monster ,

I agree. It’s much easier to hold your government to account when you guard them while they sleep. Can’t do that from 1300 miles away.

mister_monster ,

State legislatures repealed the laws against it that they had. After that it’s no distinction at all. State law enforcement was directed to not enforce federal law, because they’re not required to.

There’s no big constitutional issue: states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, this is already clearly settled. This is why things like the age to drink alcohol are forced onto states by withholding highway funding, the federal government can’t pass a national 21 and over law and expect it to be enforced, so they told the states “pass your own over 21 law or we won’t give you federal highway money” which is constitutional they say under the equal protection clause because the condition applies to all states, and the courts have ruled this way. Now every state has their own individual 21 and over law, something many states didn’t want to do. This has to happen because state law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.

These sheriffs, and the state gun law repeals and the silencer laws and all that kind of stuff are applying the same concept. Legalizing weed is really what kicked this movement into high gear, it was the first time in a century or more that states managed to prominently just not enforce federal law, now it’s become a broader movement. Nobody but feds are required to enforce any federal law, they’re just required to abide by the constitution.

mister_monster ,

You people live in an alternate fucking reality.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • All magazines
    •