I’m going to try and write on my brain to turn those thoughts entirely on the people who decided I shouldn’t get my meds anymore.

They sure think it is. Were they chased away by an angry mob? No? Have any of them even been identified?

I dunno, maybe not welcome, but certainly tolerated. “Your hate is tolerated in our city.”

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. On my current dose, I’m pretty good. Less? I very quickly go back to the state that brought me to where I needed to get on this medication. I am much better off staying on this dose until the end of my days, and frankly, so is everyone who has to interact with me.

That said, “not being free” made it so that I couldn’t stay on meds when I was in my twenties. The several other obstacles I dealt with over the decades mostly had to do with insurance that I had.

“Well look at me. I’ve never needed these drugs [He does], and I’m totally fine [He’s not]. WTF, people?”

Uh yeah, no.

I once thought it might be an idea to try and back off from 100mg sertraline to 50mg sertraline and on day two I wanted to strangle people. You can take my SSRIs from my cold dead hands.

Sure, that way they can learn to concentrate.

For now.

When you’re talking about a presidential election in the United States, it absolutely is a binary choice.

• Biden does thing to guarantee overtime to more people than it’s already guaranteed to
• Trump-appointed federal judge blocks it
• Goddamned Biden!

???

A federal judge in Texas is blocking a rule enacted by President Joe Biden earlier this year that provides overtime pay protection for roughly four million American workers.

You’ve convinced me! Four million people, and more next year, and then every three years after that - definitely nothing. What else should I be complaining about?

So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”

Got it.

Except beavers.

The other side of this is that once it’s allowed, Trump would have to take it away.

This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.

This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.

The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”

It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.

Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.

So … they shouldn’t have pardoned federal cannabis possession convictions?

I very much appreciate this, especially the link to the actual text of the bill.

“the name of the organization or organizations with respect to which the Secretary has determined such organization provided material support”

“You’ve provided relief funds and services to [redacted, national security].”

“a description of such material support or resources to the extent consistent with national security and law enforcement interests.”

“Can’t tell you, national security.”

Not sure why you would expect the federal government to be able to do anything with state charges.

B-b-b-but Democrats aren’t aligned with the working class!

If you’re wondering how this works, under this bill:

• The Treasury Secretary can “determine” that any non-profit organization “supports terrorism.”
• The Treasury Secretary does not have to provide any supporting evidence, or even any specific accusation.
• The non-profit will have 90 days to “appeal.” Without having any idea what they’re being accused of.
• The appeal can be declined without comment.
• The non-profit’s 501©3 status is revoked. This essentially closes the doors of that organization.

Remember when whether something was “unconstitutional” was relevant?