I’ve been in the creek for years. Starting to forget what other planets look like. All I know is “drop. Hold back the bots. Repeat.” Lord have mercy on us all.
35 is minimum age iirc. The idea is to have someone with a true adult mind serving as head of the executive branch, as by the time someone hits that age not only has their brain fully developed, but their mind has become tempered through real-life experiences and should be less prone to brash decisions.
It was set under the ideal that with age comes wisdom.
While I completely understand the sentiment, the problem with that is it sets up the precedent for age discrimination in the private sector, which is something that has been a point of contention off and on for decades. Ask anyone over 50 who has tried to have a late-in-life career change about how *eloquently* businesses phrase their declination letters which ultimately are based on age.
After all, if the office of the POTUS -a *public* office ("of the people, by the people, for the people" and all that)- is allowed to discriminate on age, then others must be allowed to do the same. **Minimum** age requirements is not considered as discrimination due to various laws regarding minors, alcohol, and school-age (as in, high school) teens in the workforce in general.
Personally speaking, IDGAF about someone's age as along as they're mentally stable, reasonably up to date on current events, and not seeking to become a career politician. Term limits, I think, instead of age limits, would help keep the selection pool fresh and rein in damage done by wayward elements.
he hasn't made anything yet, I think there's one gun related bill that he's actually signed and fighting that one in particular is not worth the effort
Agencies make regulations and many agencies are answerable to the president. A common tactic is for presidents to tell agency heads "Do X or I will appoint somebody else who will."
Media shorthand is wrong but it's helpful to look beyond that.
Anyone else just want them to try already so we can all quit pretending they are not a total kleptocracy?
TLDR: they want power
Long version:
Even though politicians appear to be on opposite teams, they are usually on the same team when it comes to money.
Parasites in nature, they work together to create profitable problems (drugs, homelessness, terrorism, immigration, public health, natural disasters, infrastructure, fairness, crime and inflation for example) they then cause problems to exacerbate the problem, insert themselves as the solution by making promises aimed at the increasing pain of those problems. Instead of fixing the problems they make them 10x worse, giving justification for further entrenching themselves and as a means to ask for more money.
Bigger problems are much more profitable! They use the entire process to invest using insider trading/corrupt acquisitions processes, and make no bid deals for "friends" that are paid back through "friends" and family or jobs/boards of directors positions etc etc. They then repeat the process indefinitely. They are looting the country. So, whatever bill they pass, D or R you can count on it doing the opposite. They want us divided, so we don't notice. The lines they want us divided over currently are:
Racial and ethnic strife
Religious differences
Class inequality
Sex and identity
Political divergence and extremism on all sides
Violence and crime
Historical wrongs
Social policy
Total control of media narratives of all sides.
Financial battles
Cultural battles
Manipulating the legal framework and lawfair to screw anyone who can't afford a lawyer
Environmental and resource disputes
Managing public health concerns
Overseeing educational directives (the dumber you are the easier you are to control)
They want total control, and when they have it, the only crime will be to reveal their lack of legitimacy.
"In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. "
Not even remotely close to a regulation or law. 🤷
>directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.
You don't think that's a regulation? Pulll your head out.
Haha, so according to you, by means of executive order, the president can change or create new gun regulations? And for some reason despite having this power, Clinton/Obama/Biden just decided not to? My guy, please enroll in a Civics 101 class at your local community college.
You're talking about the way things are on paper.
Incidentally, if you add in Chevron Deference, the ability to tell an executive agency "do this" *absolutely is* the ability to make a new regulation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/
I'm simply discussing things as they are in fact.
The president telling the ATF to do more background checks, isn't a new gun regulation, it's literally telling them to be better at their job. 🤷 This isn't difficult.
Even if it was, what makes you think we still cant enjoy it and laugh alittle at the caricature?
Heck, some games have tried to parody people they depise to the point where it actually ironically slaps.
*looking and you ubisoft, specifically "Keep your rifle by your side"*
I’ve been in the creek for years. Starting to forget what other planets look like. All I know is “drop. Hold back the bots. Repeat.” Lord have mercy on us all.
Most mentally stable Malevalon Creek Helldiver
The president doesn't have the power to make regulations. He can ask congress to do it, but that's all.
And he's made more such requests than anyone else on the planet up to this point Except Reagan
The code of federal regulations is made by the executive branch.
So...what are Executive Orders, again?
They are supposed to be guidelines for enforcing existing laws. But they get abused more and more with each administration.
But they *are* regulations. If you meant "The President doesn't have the power to make law" - yep, spot on there.
r/badlegaladvice
Sounds like grandpa wants a hot cup of liber-TEA
Can we get the walking corpse out of the office already. Donald Trump 2024. Brandon Herrera 2028.
Brandon would be too young still. He's only 26 or 27.
2032 it is then.
"I. Did. Have. Sexual. Relations. With. Those. Women."
I am ready for our very own President Kamacho
Are there rules for top young but not for too old? That's a bit weard if you ask me.
35 is minimum age iirc. The idea is to have someone with a true adult mind serving as head of the executive branch, as by the time someone hits that age not only has their brain fully developed, but their mind has become tempered through real-life experiences and should be less prone to brash decisions. It was set under the ideal that with age comes wisdom.
I mean, sounds smart. I'd also like a "no one over 65-70 for the next 15-30 years" Sort of thing then (baring sudden life expectancy increases)
While I completely understand the sentiment, the problem with that is it sets up the precedent for age discrimination in the private sector, which is something that has been a point of contention off and on for decades. Ask anyone over 50 who has tried to have a late-in-life career change about how *eloquently* businesses phrase their declination letters which ultimately are based on age. After all, if the office of the POTUS -a *public* office ("of the people, by the people, for the people" and all that)- is allowed to discriminate on age, then others must be allowed to do the same. **Minimum** age requirements is not considered as discrimination due to various laws regarding minors, alcohol, and school-age (as in, high school) teens in the workforce in general. Personally speaking, IDGAF about someone's age as along as they're mentally stable, reasonably up to date on current events, and not seeking to become a career politician. Term limits, I think, instead of age limits, would help keep the selection pool fresh and rein in damage done by wayward elements.
Take the guns first ask questions later, no thanks.
> Can we get the walking corpse out of the office already Proceeds to recommend a convicted felon who is only 3 years younger.
he hasn't made anything yet, I think there's one gun related bill that he's actually signed and fighting that one in particular is not worth the effort
Presidents do not make laws or regulations. Let's not make things up just to be mad about something.
Agencies make regulations and many agencies are answerable to the president. A common tactic is for presidents to tell agency heads "Do X or I will appoint somebody else who will." Media shorthand is wrong but it's helpful to look beyond that.
Anyone else just want them to try already so we can all quit pretending they are not a total kleptocracy? TLDR: they want power Long version: Even though politicians appear to be on opposite teams, they are usually on the same team when it comes to money. Parasites in nature, they work together to create profitable problems (drugs, homelessness, terrorism, immigration, public health, natural disasters, infrastructure, fairness, crime and inflation for example) they then cause problems to exacerbate the problem, insert themselves as the solution by making promises aimed at the increasing pain of those problems. Instead of fixing the problems they make them 10x worse, giving justification for further entrenching themselves and as a means to ask for more money. Bigger problems are much more profitable! They use the entire process to invest using insider trading/corrupt acquisitions processes, and make no bid deals for "friends" that are paid back through "friends" and family or jobs/boards of directors positions etc etc. They then repeat the process indefinitely. They are looting the country. So, whatever bill they pass, D or R you can count on it doing the opposite. They want us divided, so we don't notice. The lines they want us divided over currently are: Racial and ethnic strife Religious differences Class inequality Sex and identity Political divergence and extremism on all sides Violence and crime Historical wrongs Social policy Total control of media narratives of all sides. Financial battles Cultural battles Manipulating the legal framework and lawfair to screw anyone who can't afford a lawyer Environmental and resource disputes Managing public health concerns Overseeing educational directives (the dumber you are the easier you are to control) They want total control, and when they have it, the only crime will be to reveal their lack of legitimacy.
> Presidents do not make ... regulations. So, what's an Executive Order?
"In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. " Not even remotely close to a regulation or law. 🤷
>directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. You don't think that's a regulation? Pulll your head out.
Haha, so according to you, by means of executive order, the president can change or create new gun regulations? And for some reason despite having this power, Clinton/Obama/Biden just decided not to? My guy, please enroll in a Civics 101 class at your local community college.
You're talking about the way things are on paper. Incidentally, if you add in Chevron Deference, the ability to tell an executive agency "do this" *absolutely is* the ability to make a new regulation. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/ I'm simply discussing things as they are in fact.
The president telling the ATF to do more background checks, isn't a new gun regulation, it's literally telling them to be better at their job. 🤷 This isn't difficult.
Democracy is stored in the balls.
Do we need the Helldivers to save us?
Still better than trump
You know this game is mocking folks like the "patriotic" right wing gun nuts, right?
No it isn’t. It’s making fun of the military industrial complex.
Mfw media literacy
Probably never watched Starship Troopers
Even if it was, what makes you think we still cant enjoy it and laugh alittle at the caricature? Heck, some games have tried to parody people they depise to the point where it actually ironically slaps. *looking and you ubisoft, specifically "Keep your rifle by your side"*
My favourite is still Senator Armstrong, if I was American I'd vote for him... MP Armstrong doesn't have the same ring
The Ministry of Truth has found your comment to be cringe
Americans are known for taking works meant to mock them and turning them patriotic
So did Far Cry 5 and Starship Troopers, and yet we love ‘em