GiuseppeAndTheYeti @ GiuseppeAndTheYeti @midwest.social

Posts

22

Comments

494

Joined

2 yr. ago

What are you not getting about this situation? She traveled with no issue for 2 decades before this. Why would you need to travel with expungement documents in the first place. That doesn't apply to travel at all, which is why she was released to get them. Being detained by ICE indefinitely isn't a "that sucks...but that's just how it goes sometimes" situation. And that's why there's an article about it. But if you want keep licking boots, you might just get to the center. I won't stop you.

None taken 🙂

So leaving a town to you is equivalent to the travel it takes to leave the country?

Other than distance traveled, the time afforded to travel said distance, and providing the requisite documents needed to cross a border(which she had), yes. The article doesn't mention how often she traveled to Ireland. Maybe she went every other year to celebrate Christmas with her family.

Especially when you say "I never equated hometown and country. I merely used it as a metaphor" I never did... but did. Your two sentences directly contradict.

No, using a metaphorical comparison does not literally equate the two things being compared. A metaphor suggests that one thing is like another in some figurative or symbolic way, not that they are literally the same.

She thought her stuff was expunged. Which clearly it wasn't since apparently they pulled it up. If it's still in the records somewhere...

It says in the article that she presented them with documentation of the expungement of her charges. So if she was able to provide them with documentation, it clearly took place. It shouldn't take a law degree to figure out that having your criminal records expunged doesn't wipe any trace of them from government databases. It only removes them from the public eye and prevents them from coming up during background checks for things like housing or employment. The government would still have a record of her prior convictions.

I read my comment back to myself and realized that I wasn't as clear as I intended to be. I think that what the Reverend is doing here is right and just in the 'eyes of the Lord' so to speak. No complaints there. But what I'm meaning to point out is that they are detaining him for not praying the right way while they are (by the word of their own book) hypocrites, praying on 'street corners' to be seen by the masses.

Was she leaving the country legally? Yes.

Was she re-entering the country legally? Yes.

Did she ever have a warrant out for her arrest during those times that she left the country? No.

That's the bottom line. But for the sake of the argument, I never equated hometown and country. I merely used it as a metaphor to show you how travelling to her home country doesn't qualify her as a flight risk.

Because that's a broad generalization that's based on the assumption that being well-traveled makes you more likely to flee the law. Her continual travel to and from her home country has no bearing on whether or not she poses a flight risk. If that were true, anyone that moves away from home and regularly travels by car to and from their hometown should be held in custody.

You're aware that 'flight risk' isn't a literal term right? Like, it doesn't mean that there's a chance they're going to board a plane and fly away lol

I'm no theocratic scholar, but I grew up catholic and would still consider myself to be catholic despite not practicing by attending church. I've also never read the bible, but if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure there's a passage in there that says prayers should be private acts and calls people that grandstand their praying efforts hypocrites. I certainly wouldn't say that's what this Reverend is doing, but I've thought for years that christian nationalists were doing explicitly what is mentioned in the bible as hypocrisy.

They can advertise it as being as capable as a toyota tacoma as much as they want but it will never be true. The tacoma has been widely regarded as one of the most reliable trucks of all time and without getting exact numbers has way more cargo capacity than the telo. They should just market it and sell it for what it is. A much needed introduction to the world of micro trucks in urban spaces for north america.

Unrelated, it's crazy to me that Xerox has remained in the lexicon for so long.

I did verify.

51% is awfully close for me to have such harsh feelings towards a town investing in clean energy despite being founded due to coal. But I won't dissuade anyone from sharing that sentiment.

Because blood is red regardless of oxidation.

West Virginia boasts the highest coal production per capita in the United States. Living as a descendant of Italian immigrants that moved to the US midwest to mine coal, I'm pissed but this is what a majority of modern miners voted for. We may as well go back to the days of coal miners being the exploited labor of millionaires(billionaires).

I hope this doesn't come off as being snarky because I'm trying to give genuine advice from the audience you're probably trying to target but it'd be a good idea to include this bit anytime you're presenting that graphic:

The fear and greed index is based off of technical measurements of various active markets.

Very broadly, it is telling you whether or not the financial class, investors, stock traders, corporations significantly involved in that, your 401k managers... are acting fearful or greedy.

It does a good job of summarizing what I'm supposed to gather from the index.

I believe you, but having never encountered this index or representation before. I have no fucking clue what it's trying to tell me. Is it showing whether the public is fearful of the economic momentum or feeling greedy? Greed doesn't seem like a good thing.

This would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.

I bet she's just a moron

I literally just argued the opposite with my FiL. I think property should be illegal to inherit. If you have multiple children, you usually end up with a disagreement on what to do with it and how to split it up. It allows the consolidation of property for wealthy families.

You're just factually wrong. Now you may have an argument that someone that's driving drunk may be a better driver than someone that's a bad driver while sober, but alcohol impairment reduces inhibitions, increases reaction time, impairs motor control, and alters judgement. That objectively makes you a more dangerous driver compared to your sober self.

You're the one making claims lol. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone paid to spread disinformation. Or maybe you volunteer. I've got not idea. Either way, since you made the claim, the burden of proof falls on you. We'll wait.