I’m hoping Corporal Couchfucker and the cabinet decide to oust him, but the earliest that would realistically happen is the end of January, after the new Congress is seated and he becomes eligible to run for two full terms himself.

USS Abraham Lincoln departed for a 180-day deployment on November 21st, 2025. That was ~270 days ago, and they are scheduled to remain on station until USS George Washington relieves them later this week.

Normally, the Navy schedules a port call for its carriers every 30-45 days. Lincoln hasn’t had a port call since a one-day stop in Guam back in December.

What Trump is really saying is that ships that had been scheduled to participate in the exercises are being diverted to support the Iran war. The Navy is reducing its presence in the South Pacific and repositioning them in the Indian ocean.

Donnie asked South Korea for help in Iran, and South Korea told him to pound sand.

Your 🌭 is a 🐐.

Respond with a couple of emojis. No actual text. Doesn’t particularly matter what emojis you choose, just pick a couple at random. The more obscure the better.

If they aren’t going to bother reading what you wrote, let them try to find meaning in 🥔🗑️.

Social aptitude and Communication are critical skills for online gaming. Your “doubt” is about 20 years out of date.

👍

Seems to me that the conversation remains a confidential one.

I’m going to assume you’re acting in good faith for one more response. I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read 632(c). I’m going to parse out all the language that refers to non-pertinent circumstances. And I’m going to make it big and bold so you understand that it is actually important for you to read this:

For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” … excludes a communication … in any … circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be … recorded.

We have a call where one party has said “This call may be recorded”. A circumstance has arisen in which the parties may reasonably expect this call to be recorded. This call is now specifically excluded from classification as a “confidential communication”.

Seems to me that the conversation remains a confidential one.

I don’t think you’re stupid, and I don’t think you’re acting in bad faith. I assume that you didn’t actually read or comprehend what I previously posted. Moving forward, I will not be making that same assumption again. As soon as the parties are aware that the conversation may be recorded, this particular statute no longer applies.

Why is there any clause about consent, if consent is never needed?

Who said consent is never needed? Certainly not I. Certainly not the law. The idea that “consent is never needed” arose entirely within your own understanding; within your own mind.

This is an eavesdropping statute. This law applies primarily to third parties, not actual parties to the conversation.

Adam and Bob are having a private conversation in Bob’s office, but Mallory has placed a voice recorder under the desk. Mallory is not a party to the conversation. Neither Adam nor Bob have any reason to believe anyone is recording. This is still a confidential conversation, even though it is actually being recorded. Adam and Bob would both have to consent, or Mallory can be charged under this law.

They don’t buy enough yachts and private jets and other manufactured property that would put a worker to work to produce it.

I would argue that “Real Estate” and “Politicians” are de facto “stocks”.

Good. We’re moving on to a different argument, and abandoning the “piss” metaphor. Excellent.

You cited this law. Specifically, 632(a).

I would direct your attention to the definition of “confidential conversation”, at 632(c):

For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Upon any individual on the call stating “This call may be recorded”, every party present “may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded”. When that happens, the call no longer qualifies as a “confidential conversation”. As it is no longer a “confidential conversation”, 632(a) no longer applies. As it is no longer a “confidential conversation”, any party to it may record it.

The upper class doesn’t buy anything but stocks.

It’s a little more complicated than that… They have 7 years from the time you stopped paying to file a suit. If you make a payment to them after 6 years, the clock resets, and they get another 7 years.

Technically, the clock stops while you’re out of the country, but if they don’t know when you left and when you returned, they don’t know how much time they have.

When you refer to “my piss” and “your piss”, you imply a distinction that does not actually exist in law. Under wiretapping laws, there is no distinction between the piss of one participant and the piss of another participant in the conversation. When you consent to drinking piss from the punch bowl, you consent to drinking any participant’s piss, and not just your own.

Your entire argument arises from that non-existent distinction; your entire argument fails without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws

Most the world is single-party consent. Two-party consent is a rather Orwellian concept, IMO.

Single party consent means that you can record yourself, and you can record anything you hear. Your participation in the conversation is your consent.

The only way to revoke your consent is to withdraw from the conversation.

Single party consent means that your consent is irrelevant; they are permitted to record anyway, even if they told you they are not.

It also means that their consent is irrelevant: you are permitted to record anyway, even if you tell them you are not.

Laws operate by restriction, not allowance. That which is not prohibited is permitted.

The probibitions on recording only apply to third parties. If you are part of the conversation, (or the participants have no expectation of privacy) it is permissible for you to record that conversation.

I’ve got two devices (An auto-darkening welding hood, and a LED desk lamp) with USB-C ports that will simply not charge if you plug them into a USB-C charger. You cannot use a USB-C charger to charge these USB-C devices.

You must use a USB-A charger with a USB-A-to-USB-C cable to charge these devices.

Let them eat slop.

The sign being metal would probably provide a low-impedance path for the electricity to flow around your body instead of through it. It would function similarly to a faraday cage.

Why am I being tasered?

This question needs to be answered before any meaningful conclusion can be made. If I am being tasered by cops to stop me from unjustifiably harming you, responsibility for that tasering falls on me, not you, nor the cops protecting you.

If I am being tasered for no good reason, responsibility falls on the taserer.