SkiSkinnySkis
@skiskinnyskis.bsky.social
So pop music is more garbage than the garbage it used to be.
December 13, 2025 at 12:34 AM
So pop music is more garbage than the garbage it used to be.
And that "huge" insurance discount, would turn into a huge insurance increase for most people.
December 13, 2025 at 12:26 AM
And that "huge" insurance discount, would turn into a huge insurance increase for most people.
If you did that all that would happen is all the people who get outraged in threads like this would realize they are above the legal limit almost every time they go out to eat dinner or are driving to work in the morning after a night out. And you'd have a huge backlash against interlocks.
December 13, 2025 at 12:24 AM
If you did that all that would happen is all the people who get outraged in threads like this would realize they are above the legal limit almost every time they go out to eat dinner or are driving to work in the morning after a night out. And you'd have a huge backlash against interlocks.
Ie do a survey of car speeds on a road and set the limit so 15% are going faster and 85% are going at or below that speed.
December 13, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Ie do a survey of car speeds on a road and set the limit so 15% are going faster and 85% are going at or below that speed.
Speed limits are even more arbitrary than that. They really aren't even set as safety limits, rather many of them are set at the 85 percentile of average speeds.
December 13, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Speed limits are even more arbitrary than that. They really aren't even set as safety limits, rather many of them are set at the 85 percentile of average speeds.
Well, those that don't drink at all, sure.
December 12, 2025 at 11:24 PM
Well, those that don't drink at all, sure.
The hypocrisy on threads like this is always off the charts due to the vast majority of people failing to realize the legal limit is very low number of drinks wise.
Most of the people here acting outraged have almost assuredly driven over the legal limit numerous times after dinner at a restaurant.
Most of the people here acting outraged have almost assuredly driven over the legal limit numerous times after dinner at a restaurant.
December 12, 2025 at 11:23 PM
The hypocrisy on threads like this is always off the charts due to the vast majority of people failing to realize the legal limit is very low number of drinks wise.
Most of the people here acting outraged have almost assuredly driven over the legal limit numerous times after dinner at a restaurant.
Most of the people here acting outraged have almost assuredly driven over the legal limit numerous times after dinner at a restaurant.
Restaurant industry more likely. People fail to realize the legal limit equates to a very small number of drinks.
Most of the outraged people in the thread have likely driven above the legal limit numerous times after going out to dinner, all while thinking "drunk" driving is like +6 or 7 drinks.
Most of the outraged people in the thread have likely driven above the legal limit numerous times after going out to dinner, all while thinking "drunk" driving is like +6 or 7 drinks.
December 12, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Restaurant industry more likely. People fail to realize the legal limit equates to a very small number of drinks.
Most of the outraged people in the thread have likely driven above the legal limit numerous times after going out to dinner, all while thinking "drunk" driving is like +6 or 7 drinks.
Most of the outraged people in the thread have likely driven above the legal limit numerous times after going out to dinner, all while thinking "drunk" driving is like +6 or 7 drinks.
But you have the understanding that almost no one else in these threads has. The legal limit is really low drink wise, yet most people associate "drunk driving" with being totally wasted (ie +6 or 7 drinks).
In fact, most of the people outraged in the thread have driven "drunk" numerous times.
In fact, most of the people outraged in the thread have driven "drunk" numerous times.
December 12, 2025 at 11:04 PM
But you have the understanding that almost no one else in these threads has. The legal limit is really low drink wise, yet most people associate "drunk driving" with being totally wasted (ie +6 or 7 drinks).
In fact, most of the people outraged in the thread have driven "drunk" numerous times.
In fact, most of the people outraged in the thread have driven "drunk" numerous times.
Lol. Ya, if you based it off Utah / a Mormon concept and basically the entire restaurant industry would collapse.
December 12, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Lol. Ya, if you based it off Utah / a Mormon concept and basically the entire restaurant industry would collapse.
Well with a reasonable science based BAC limit. Do it based on Utah's .02 and no one would be able to get home from dinner.
December 12, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Well with a reasonable science based BAC limit. Do it based on Utah's .02 and no one would be able to get home from dinner.
Seeking treason and capital punishment would have been much better than impeachment for J6.
December 12, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Seeking treason and capital punishment would have been much better than impeachment for J6.
Which we saw with J6. "Oh we couldn't convict him in impeachment, so better be extra careful about criminal charges or banning via the 14th Sec 3."
December 12, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Which we saw with J6. "Oh we couldn't convict him in impeachment, so better be extra careful about criminal charges or banning via the 14th Sec 3."
What's worse is since people see impeached as being a criminal process (it's not), it takes away from the actual criminal process and real accountability (jail compared to just losing employment).
December 12, 2025 at 6:41 PM
What's worse is since people see impeached as being a criminal process (it's not), it takes away from the actual criminal process and real accountability (jail compared to just losing employment).
Your logic is the same as equating a HR hearing and being let go from a job to being charged with a felony and thrown in jail. It's absurd.
December 12, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Your logic is the same as equating a HR hearing and being let go from a job to being charged with a felony and thrown in jail. It's absurd.
I mean if you're a moron then sure that makes sense.
December 12, 2025 at 4:26 PM
I mean if you're a moron then sure that makes sense.
While in a criminal setting even jury nullification would just lead to a retrial in almost all cases of such clear guilt.
December 12, 2025 at 3:38 PM
While in a criminal setting even jury nullification would just lead to a retrial in almost all cases of such clear guilt.
Likewise someone could 100% be guilty of cold blooded murder (like on tape and admit to it willingly) and never be impeached or impeached and acquitted by a unanimous vote (as again it's a purely political process).
December 12, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Likewise someone could 100% be guilty of cold blooded murder (like on tape and admit to it willingly) and never be impeached or impeached and acquitted by a unanimous vote (as again it's a purely political process).
No it's really not. A person could be impeached and convicted for wearing a green shirt on Tuesday as it's purely a political process. Indict someone for a made up crime and it would be instantly thrown out in criminal court.
December 12, 2025 at 3:33 PM
No it's really not. A person could be impeached and convicted for wearing a green shirt on Tuesday as it's purely a political process. Indict someone for a made up crime and it would be instantly thrown out in criminal court.
Impeachment isn't an indictment, nor is it a criminal process. It's purely a political process, and it is only about losing a job.
It's wholly inadequate on its own for justice and accountability for major crimes and corruption. Yet way too many people see it as an end all be all.
It's wholly inadequate on its own for justice and accountability for major crimes and corruption. Yet way too many people see it as an end all be all.
December 12, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Impeachment isn't an indictment, nor is it a criminal process. It's purely a political process, and it is only about losing a job.
It's wholly inadequate on its own for justice and accountability for major crimes and corruption. Yet way too many people see it as an end all be all.
It's wholly inadequate on its own for justice and accountability for major crimes and corruption. Yet way too many people see it as an end all be all.
ultimately is only about federal employment and being able to keep a job or not.
December 12, 2025 at 7:59 AM
ultimately is only about federal employment and being able to keep a job or not.
Where if you had subtracted impeachment from the equation after J6, there likely would have been a much stronger push to use the 14th Sec3 and aggressively prosecute criminally.
Which were much more appropriate anyways for accountability given the nature of the crimes, then a failed process that ..
Which were much more appropriate anyways for accountability given the nature of the crimes, then a failed process that ..
December 12, 2025 at 7:53 AM
Where if you had subtracted impeachment from the equation after J6, there likely would have been a much stronger push to use the 14th Sec3 and aggressively prosecute criminally.
Which were much more appropriate anyways for accountability given the nature of the crimes, then a failed process that ..
Which were much more appropriate anyways for accountability given the nature of the crimes, then a failed process that ..
What occurred in reality is that people went, "Well we couldn't convict him in the impeachment, so how are we going to ban him under the 14th? And we better be extra careful and work the way up if we charge him at all criminally."
December 12, 2025 at 7:49 AM
What occurred in reality is that people went, "Well we couldn't convict him in the impeachment, so how are we going to ban him under the 14th? And we better be extra careful and work the way up if we charge him at all criminally."
Against Trump and all GOPers that supported Trump and J6, combined with a much more aggressive use of criminal charges including treason.
Now in theory all of this could have happened with impeachment too, but as people wrongly see impeachment as a criminal process and an end all be all...
Now in theory all of this could have happened with impeachment too, but as people wrongly see impeachment as a criminal process and an end all be all...
December 12, 2025 at 7:45 AM
Against Trump and all GOPers that supported Trump and J6, combined with a much more aggressive use of criminal charges including treason.
Now in theory all of this could have happened with impeachment too, but as people wrongly see impeachment as a criminal process and an end all be all...
Now in theory all of this could have happened with impeachment too, but as people wrongly see impeachment as a criminal process and an end all be all...
We saw this with J6. Since Trump was impeached and then acquitted, there was then a move by Biden, Ds, and the media to move on and not seek appropriate justice.
We likely would have been much better off with no impeachment after J6, but instead, a focus on Federally enforcing the 14th Sec3.
We likely would have been much better off with no impeachment after J6, but instead, a focus on Federally enforcing the 14th Sec3.
December 12, 2025 at 7:42 AM
We saw this with J6. Since Trump was impeached and then acquitted, there was then a move by Biden, Ds, and the media to move on and not seek appropriate justice.
We likely would have been much better off with no impeachment after J6, but instead, a focus on Federally enforcing the 14th Sec3.
We likely would have been much better off with no impeachment after J6, but instead, a focus on Federally enforcing the 14th Sec3.