They have to accept cash in the US as well. The post you're replying to is just saying that they can't ring anything up or accept any payment without power.
Having said that, I don't think it's good policy to remove everything, down to the point where you have: Mary came in. She saw John. John saw her too. Mary said "Well, what now?". John replied "I don't know"
Sometimes it's hilarious to describe the body language and internal monologue of a particularly awful character, and sometimes it feels pushed.
Thank god I'm not a writer. It's hard enough writing something that passes a linters / CI tests and works in production without adding "how does it make you feel to read it?". Code is written to run on machines. That's is function. But it should be written to be understandable and maintainable to humans as a secondary goal. But taking a human, making them laugh, making them cry and changing their life? I wouldn't know where to start.
But oddly, I re-read my own post and now I have a strange desire to find out what happened between Mary and John.
2026: Ground breaking novel by raffraffraff, "The thing that occurred between John and Mary"
A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.
Is someone more or less likely to perform such an act if there's a possibility of legal consequences? If not, then we don't really need courts at all, do we?
The fact that the courts have explicitly legalized these blatantly criminal acts is what gives the military the cover and the imperative to dutifully carry them out.
