Yes, it can't impact the trial, that he didn't testify. Doesn't mean we can't infer, out here away from the court, that he put up a big front in public and slunk away with his tail between his legs in court, because he knew he was guilty and would only have made things worse if he testified, along with earning some counts of perjury.
Shouldn't you be able to get it in in at least some states via ballot measures, from where you can use it to send better people to DC to implement it federally?
First conviction, they'd be concurrent and highly unlikely he'd get max time. However, this is a first conviction, breaking the glass ceiling for convicting an ex president, in the weakest of the four current trials. Sentences become more likely to be jail up to minimum guaranteed imprisonment for some time, because of sentencing guidelines, as well as the terms getting longer for each conviction.
Yeah, I've been having this argument a lot lately, so the sarcasm shit right past me. It's exhausting trying to get people to understand that no, really, genocide a * 3 plus additional genocide b is worse than genocide a alone.
I don't think I said that. Can you show me where I did?
I will say that you have a slice of responsibility over the future, and you'll have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you end up making - including the one where you sit on your hands. No matter what you do, you can still complain about it, but the future will be whichever one we collectively steer to. One of those possible futures is worse than the other. So it seems to me that we should steer away from it, rather than wrong our hands about how we don't like the choices. Sure, you don't like the choices. They're the choices regardless. Model the outcomes of each possibility, decide which one you hate the least and steer towards it, because we are getting a future selected from among the possibilities. Jesus is not going to rapture us out of this.
Yes. Humans are given to certainty and judgement in excess of what the evidence merits, so I have taken to understatement.
I'm not convinced that Joe Biden is fascism, though. Would you be so kind as to compare him to Umberto eco's list, and share examples on each point? Trump seems like a much better match to that, but perhaps I have missed something.
A lot of things, apparently. He's been leaning further and further into it, and as it's caused his channel to fall off he's making pity me videos about how the sjw algorithm is out to get him.
I mean, acknowledging that humans are never going to be fully informed or perfect calculators, the correct time is approximately when the expected outcome of action is better than the expected outcome of inaction, plus some finagle factor to account for bias.
Yes but see, if we just sit on our hands and don't vote we won't have any responsibility for what follows! Only voting for someone who is less than ideal on this issue is a morally bad choice!
I have no interest in downvoting you, but I would like to say that on priors, I would be surprised to learn that she saw "Hamas" and "Palestinians" as anything other than a distinction without a difference. She's electively of a set with Lindsey "Nuke Gaza" Graham, and she's voting for Trump apparently now, who has been very vocal about his support for the "kill them all" perspective.
Do you have specific evidence that leads you to believe otherwise, or is it more of a charity in humanity thing?
"Big corps" aren't involved here. It's a philanthropy project, and from what I can find it's not legally encumbered in any way like Monsanto stuff is. This is entirely Greenpeace doing something that gets headlines, instead of something actually good. Don't forget that that organization, too, has motives, first among which is going to be survival and advancement of the organization.
I did that. I'm also going to vote against more genocide, done not just abroad but at home.
In the voting booth, there is no "no genocide" button. Your choices come down to "more genocide" and "less genocide", and you get to push towards one outcome or the other.
Personally, I'm going to take a brave stance against "more genocide", but if your principles keep you from engaging with the real options, well.
I'm sure the people who die who wouldn't have otherwise will forgive you.
And you can prove that corruption claim? Because the red team has been busting their asses trying to find something, anything, and they have fuck-all. Waaaah he has a failson, that's your knockdown argument?
Or did you mean trump, who keeps losing court cases because he's a corrupt lying rapist with bad taste and hygiene?
Yes, it can't impact the trial, that he didn't testify. Doesn't mean we can't infer, out here away from the court, that he put up a big front in public and slunk away with his tail between his legs in court, because he knew he was guilty and would only have made things worse if he testified, along with earning some counts of perjury.
We can dream.
Americans have a huge hard on for punishing people, regardless of utility.
Shouldn't you be able to get it in in at least some states via ballot measures, from where you can use it to send better people to DC to implement it federally?
First conviction, they'd be concurrent and highly unlikely he'd get max time. However, this is a first conviction, breaking the glass ceiling for convicting an ex president, in the weakest of the four current trials. Sentences become more likely to be jail up to minimum guaranteed imprisonment for some time, because of sentencing guidelines, as well as the terms getting longer for each conviction.
Something something why doesn't Batman arrest Bruce Wayne
Yeah, I've been having this argument a lot lately, so the sarcasm shit right past me. It's exhausting trying to get people to understand that no, really, genocide a * 3 plus additional genocide b is worse than genocide a alone.
I don't think I said that. Can you show me where I did?
I will say that you have a slice of responsibility over the future, and you'll have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you end up making - including the one where you sit on your hands. No matter what you do, you can still complain about it, but the future will be whichever one we collectively steer to. One of those possible futures is worse than the other. So it seems to me that we should steer away from it, rather than wrong our hands about how we don't like the choices. Sure, you don't like the choices. They're the choices regardless. Model the outcomes of each possibility, decide which one you hate the least and steer towards it, because we are getting a future selected from among the possibilities. Jesus is not going to rapture us out of this.
Yes. Humans are given to certainty and judgement in excess of what the evidence merits, so I have taken to understatement.
I'm not convinced that Joe Biden is fascism, though. Would you be so kind as to compare him to Umberto eco's list, and share examples on each point? Trump seems like a much better match to that, but perhaps I have missed something.
A lot of things, apparently. He's been leaning further and further into it, and as it's caused his channel to fall off he's making pity me videos about how the sjw algorithm is out to get him.
I didn't store a local copy of the specifics; it didn't seem worth occupying space with, but there's plenty of stuff around. I wasn't sure if you'd want a video, so here's text (apologies about the site but.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadiversity/comments/rc4vj0/general_wtf_shad_vent_discussion/
If you care, shadiversity went full chud.
I mean, acknowledging that humans are never going to be fully informed or perfect calculators, the correct time is approximately when the expected outcome of action is better than the expected outcome of inaction, plus some finagle factor to account for bias.
Apparently it has a significant chance of "aggressive ass cancer".
Yes but see, if we just sit on our hands and don't vote we won't have any responsibility for what follows! Only voting for someone who is less than ideal on this issue is a morally bad choice!
I have no interest in downvoting you, but I would like to say that on priors, I would be surprised to learn that she saw "Hamas" and "Palestinians" as anything other than a distinction without a difference. She's electively of a set with Lindsey "Nuke Gaza" Graham, and she's voting for Trump apparently now, who has been very vocal about his support for the "kill them all" perspective.
Do you have specific evidence that leads you to believe otherwise, or is it more of a charity in humanity thing?
They don't own it, they don't get paid for it.
"Big corps" aren't involved here. It's a philanthropy project, and from what I can find it's not legally encumbered in any way like Monsanto stuff is. This is entirely Greenpeace doing something that gets headlines, instead of something actually good. Don't forget that that organization, too, has motives, first among which is going to be survival and advancement of the organization.
If just grow carrots lol was adequate, tell me again why people are deficient in the nutrients golden rice has over baseline rice, please.
I did that. I'm also going to vote against more genocide, done not just abroad but at home.
In the voting booth, there is no "no genocide" button. Your choices come down to "more genocide" and "less genocide", and you get to push towards one outcome or the other.
Personally, I'm going to take a brave stance against "more genocide", but if your principles keep you from engaging with the real options, well.
I'm sure the people who die who wouldn't have otherwise will forgive you.
And you can prove that corruption claim? Because the red team has been busting their asses trying to find something, anything, and they have fuck-all. Waaaah he has a failson, that's your knockdown argument?
Or did you mean trump, who keeps losing court cases because he's a corrupt lying rapist with bad taste and hygiene?