Makeitstop @ Makeitstop @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

660

Joined

2 yr. ago

They aren't dropping the second degree murder charge, so they don't necessarily have to meet the higher bar that this sets.

That said, while they probably want to be able to paint him as a terrorist, that necessarily involves a more detailed look at what he was trying to accomplish, and that might just backfire on the prosecution. It only takes one sympathetic juror to block a guilty verdict.

I think people can still be surprised by how widespread the resentment is. Things are so polarized and there’s so much focus on dividing us into warring factions, it can be hard to believe that there's common ground on anything. Especially when there's so many other experiences we all shared that didn't lead to a similar understanding.

The problem is that we have so little media that is both trusted and trustworthy. That so many people don't actively seek out reliable information and think critically about it. Many just find a source that confirms their bias and feeds their emotional state, while others just passively absorb from those around them and on social media. And once you've bought the lies and misinformation, anyone that tries to tell you the truth becomes suspicious, because you know they are wrong.

And because the never ending stream of bullshit is both a lucrative industry and a source of immense political power, there is a vested interest in keeping it highly polarized and partisan. They have to tie it to your identity and tell you that this is what your country stands for, so that you know that everyone who disagrees is an enemy.

Anti-vaxxers are nothing new, but they were never so openly embraced by a political party (to say nothing of those who have claimed that vaccines are suddenly against their religion, discovering a prohibition that no religion has ever had prior to 2020). They don't care how many people will suffer or die because of their actions, as long as they can benefit from it politically. Sadly, this is a fairly consistent theme on the right.

I've just been hoping for the long shot that a plane carrying both of them will go down before the electoral college meets. If it also takes Musk, Johnson, Kennedy, and a bunch of others from his inner circle, so much the better.

They love authority figures telling other people what to do. Freedom is me being free to do what I want and you being free to do what I want.

Tesla's value is about getting investors to buy into speculation and false promises, and has very little to do with their ability to sell cars.

The constitution is very clear about birthright citizenship. But then, it's also pretty fucking clear about not allowing insurrectionists to be president, and that presidents aren't supposed to be above the law.

“objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for

That should be a fair standard, except that this is legislation being pushed specifically because objective, good faith, scientific objections were preventing people from getting the ineffective treatments they wanted after embracing right wing conspiracy theories and rejecting actual medical advice. Because this is a requirement and not merely a shield for those doctors who do choose to prescribe a requested medication, the determination for what is and is not a valid objection is not left to the doctor but to whatever body would be adjudication a dispute.

The article doesn't say what the potential penalty is for refusing, so I'm not sure if this is something that could result in criminal charges, lawsuits, or which might come up on malpractice cases. But I know I wouldn't want my future to be dependent on my ability to convince a judge and/or jury that my objections are sufficiently grounded in science. Especially not in a state where a majority have seemingly decided that they know more about medicine than doctors and scientists.

Just think how much more productive they'll be as prisoners working as slave labor. Why spend money fighting homelessness when you can make money off it instead? Everybody wins!

Well, everybody that matters anyway.

As though he'd be taking any less without the judgement against him.

Everything Trump does is to help enemies of the United States or himself and his buddies.

Insert the "same picture" meme here.

...fans can, and do, engage in entire conversations based solely on the show's quotes and contexts.

Skinner and Chalmers at luncheon.

Seymour, his house on fire.

He does it all the time. This is just a normal Tuesday night for Shia LaBeouf.

Guys, I have a theory.

Can't say what the specific motivations are without knowing who did it, but it certainly would be plausible that this was someone denied coverage for a terminal or otherwise life ruining condition. How many people out there did this guy's company put into a hopeless situation? Once they have nothing to lose, it's not hard to imagine someone deciding to get revenge.

Congress and the incoming Trump administration should also take note of that before they do anything to strip coverage from tens of millions of people.

Seems fairly consistent with the messages coming from both campaigns. Harris ran on abortion and not inflation or promises of large scale economic change, while portraying Trump (correctly) as a threat to democracy. Trump ran on immigration and inflation, and portrayed Democrats as radical far left ideologues that are hell bent on turning your kids trans and your frogs gay or something.

Or that they consider anyone who they don't want here to be an illegal immigrant. Doesn't matter if there is a federal law that grants legal status to the people in question, or that the constitution grants citizenship to those who are born here, Trump and pals don't like those rules so they should be able to ignore them.

Huddlefish

Slight correction: A costitutional amendment requires 2/3 majorities in both houses of congress, and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures.

Technically people do owe taxes on revenue from illegal activity. You certainly could put a tax on something that's illegal, I just don't think it would bring in much revenue I'd you're still prosecuting people for that same thing you are taxing.