No they just charge credit card users the fees, and encourage you to pay cash.

In America all the merchants just charge the customer the merchant fees and call it a day

That was a big problem a couple decades ago, and with Discover even more so. But I can’t remember any time in the last 15 years when AMEX wasn’t accepted.

Why do you think it lied to you?

YT-DLP doesn’t make further copies. It downloads a video file from YouTube the exact same way your browser does.

Stranger Things Season Five is the most blatant example of this. It’s absurd.

Matrix is a bit of a shit show and also isn’t a discord alternative to begin with.

They’re turning away because the US is causing them economic harm.

It’s not permanent, but it is longer term than Trump because the soft power the US built in the last 75 years was due to the aftermath of WW2 and the decades of economic inertia that followed, and once those allies diversify their trade, there’d be no reason for them to go back to their over reliance on American trade (unless America gives them a very compelling reason to).

Trade with Canada and Mexico will be least affected among the US’ allies though because at the end of the day the USA is the worlds largest consumer economy and without the tariffs it’s just cheaper to export to the US than across an ocean. It’s Americas allies across the pond that will take the longest to recover

You’re arguing that the checks and balances are failing, but have been unable to provide any actual examples due to all of your claims being poorly reasoned, and based on information that’s verifiably false.

I didn’t argue the different between the 4th and 14th amendments. You tried to compare a right that doesn’t exist to one that explicitly does. You incorrectly stated a right to abortion was implicitly covered by the constitution by comparing it to the right to protect personal property from unreasonable searches and seizure. But the latter is explicitly covered in the constitution. The former is not. A bad faith argument that stems from you not knowing and not caring what’s actually in the constitution.

You are the bad faith sealion because you argue with the purpose of exhausting me into giving up by making a number of specious, low-effort arguments from a place of willful ignorance, where you get to make any claim without the burden evidence or reason behind it, but force me to respond from a place of knowledge and understanding.

At least now that you know what you’re doing, you can take steps to do better

Ctrl + f “abortion”. Not there

Ctrl + f “computer”. Not there

That’s a a very childlike understanding of language, but in the fourth amendment if you Ctrl + f “effects” , you’ll get a result. And a computer is an effect. The fourth amendment is explicit, all of your effects are protected. Unless you can make the argument that a computer you bought and paid for that you own is not your personal property, and therefore not an effect, your argument here has failed.

Judge Clarence is still sitting

And Congress has the power to impeach and the senate has the power to convict, which we may very well see soon. Since this check has not yet failed, it hasn’t failed. Simple as.

Your argument is that the word abortion doesn’t explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.

Incorrect, the 4th amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

“Effects” mean personal property. Since computers are your personal property they are explicitly protected in the fourth amendment. There’s no such provision in the constitution that explicitly protects abortion access the way the fourth protects computers.

And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.

Because that remediation exists and has not been in any way defeated, we can confidently say that check has not failed.

It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.

No it doesn’t. The protections for personal computers comes from the fourth amendment. The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states. Likewise if we actually add an amendment to the constitution protecting abortion access, the fourteenth would apply it to the states. But the fourteenth doesn’t either on its own. You continue to prove you don’t understand any of the things you’re talking about.

He is still a judge. Check has failed.

Can’t have. He can still be impeached, and there is an interest among opposition government. The check still exists.

Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.

They do not disagree with me. You can just go and read the fourteenth amendment. It’s not like a lost document. It says nothing about abortion. Roe V Wade was a net positive for us as a society, but it was never a solution.

He should be impeached, but that check has failed.

It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.

You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed

You have an inability to prove any have

But there are supposed to be checks to ensure impartiality. These have obviously

Like what? Which checks are those specifically? We can’t violate checks that exist only in your head.

The fact that there exists a second layer of checks doesn’t mean the first can be ignored

Incorrect, having multiple avenues of remediation is the entire point of the system. Thats why they’re referred to as “Checks and balances”, it’s implicit in the name that the system balances faults with remediations. The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist. This is a great example of your inability to reason.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual’s right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion.

It does not. It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion. Saying it applies to abortion was an interpretation made by the Supreme Court, and thus can be reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. Thats the basis of how our legal system was designed. The legislative branch is the body of government that must actually enshrine the right to abortion access into the constitution.

The checks that are supposed to prevent compromised judges from sitting in the Supreme Court have failed. This we have agreed.

We have not agreed. The system does not rely on or promise in the absolute certainty that every Supreme Court justice can be ensured to be impartial. Thats why the Supreme Court is a panel, and mechanisms exist to remove judges. In order for the panel to fail, a majority of Supreme Court justices must be compromised. The fact that there are two problematic members on the panel is within what the panel size was designed to mitigate.

The panel voted 6-3 to reverse a federal constitutional right. The panel check failed.

No they did not do that. Abortion access has never at any time been an explicit right in the United States constitution. What the panel did was reverse an earlier decision that a constitutional right to something else entirely merely allowed abortion access as a consequence. The panel check did not fail because the panel did only what was within its power to do. If we want abortion access to be a constitutional right, we have to actually put it in our constitution. Roe v Wade was never more than a bandaid without a permanent solution. We absolutely should enshrine abortion access into our constitution, but before you condemn us for not having yet done so, you should know that the EU does not have a law allowing it in all member states either. In fact two EU member states have restrictions similar to the US.

What you’re doing isn’t reasoning. You’re just misunderstanding the facts on a fundamental level and then drawing unreasonable conclusions from a pool of ignorance.

You have admitted several Supreme Court judges are compromised. I.e. several checks have already failed.

That does not logically follow. The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason, the check succeeded. Again you don’t seem to know what the checks and balances are.

Reversal of roe v wade is solid evidence against your protestations.

Not in the slightest. Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

You’re just kind of babbling incoherently at this point. It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of the mental gymnastics you’re doing. You’re replying like an AI chat bot that’s filled it’s context window.

Many have been. Refer to our previous conversation for the example.

They haven’t been. Our previous conversation confirms that. It’s just you saying things, as if merely speaking them makes them true, like some kind of Harry Potter spell. Like I said, it’s just ignorance on your part, misunderstanding the basis of things.

No power is handed over to the US.

Oh course it has. Americas defense spending isn’t really a factor. With every defense agreement, trade agreement, and willful choice to put all your eggs in Americas basket, you handed over that power.

It’s the accurate way to put it. For example, Canadians are not diversifying their shopping habits. They are consciously choosing to abandon American made goods.

It’s the emotion driven, factually inaccurate way to put it.

Looks like imports and exports over this summer are up over last year

Should other countries be paying the US to be the world police force?

How about not handing over that power to the US at all?

Including clauses like emoluments, restrictions on terms, separation of church and state etc. Many of which are being or have been eroded

None of them have been. Arguing about things you don’t really understand is only a sign that maybe you’re not so different from the average flyover state American. Every point you’ve tried to make so far is either a critical misunderstanding, or is outright verifiably false.

Abandoning is a melodramatic way of putting it. Diversifying is a more accurate term. And it’s something that the rest of the world shouldn’t have waited until this point to do. Other countries will always have to rely on the U.S. to some degree, but the fact that they let America be the world police in the first place is their own doing.

America was never promised to be a perfect utopia that could never do wrong. On the contrary, the founding fathers were well aware of the potential for things to go wrong, and they built the country to be resistant to a complete fall into tyranny, and so far it has been. You’re free to speculate on the future, but as of right now we haven’t yet reached the low points some of our now allies did just in this past century.