NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

1,116

Joined

2 yr. ago

Of all the Supreme Court precedents that are going on the chopping block, I certainly did not expect United States v. Wong Kim Ark on that list.

Taking wagers on how long it will last before Trump's FTC revokes it

(Bets are only accepted in the form of biscuits 🍪)

An xkcd becomes a classic when people use it a lot.

In most cases, destroying evidence will result in an adverse inference being drawn against the accused. It means that the court will assume that the evidence was incriminating which is why you destroyed it.

I don't think anyone has been able to recreate his experiment. He's accused of manipulating it to fit his narrative. He denies these accusations, of course.

I mean, Biden dropping out already caused a fuss with people who bought the "Don't let the old man win" merch because it suddenly changed from an anti-Biden slogan to an anti-Trump slogan

Did he do anything besides the Stanford Prison Experiment that I just don't know of? Because if that's all, I'd be more inclined to say that he's just stubbornly wrong rather than evil. But maybe you know something I don't

I remember some popular YouTuber ran an experiment trying to re-create the conclusions that Zimbardo had come to. The results contradicted his conclusions and they confronted him. He continued to defend his experiment. He seemed like a rather stubborn man.

The police can engage in rubber-hose cryptanalysis. In many countries, it's legal to keep a suspect in prison indefinitely until they comply with a warrant requiring them to divulge encryption keys. And that's not to mention the countries where they'll do more than keep you in a decently-clean cell with three meals a day to, ahem, encourage you to divulge the password.

Law enforcement shouldn't be able to get into someone's mobile phone without a warrant anyway. All this change does is frustrate attempts by police to evade going through the proper legal procedures and abridging the rights of the accused.

The UK is a small country that doesn't have nearly the geopolitical sway that the US does. If the UK withdraws to itself, that sucks for Britons but the rest of the world will carry on. If the US withdraws to itself, it will suck for the rest of the world but the Americans will carry on.

I want to be clear here that this is dangerous messaging. While any individual vote likely has little effect on the outcome of an election, it's people's collective vote that does ultimately decide the outcome. And when the electorate is disengaged, disinterested, and apathetic, that is the environment in which fascism and authoritarianism thrives. Voting is not and should not be the end of a citizen's political participation, but it is still vitally important. Voting should only be the foundation of citizen political participation. It's also important to campaign, to discuss important political issues with others, and to protest and take direct action against the injustice of the political class. But if you don't vote and spread the idea that voting is meaningless, your efforts will change nothing.

This line in particular comes a lot of young people, and it is an absolutely understandable and reasonable conclusion for them to come from seeing as they are the most politically neglected group, and politicians almost never pay more than lip service to the concerns of the young. Youth turnout in elections is historically rubbish, so why would any rational politician pay heed to the demands of a voting bloc that won't influence the outcome of an election? Politicians who pander to youth voters will lose to politicians who pander to old voters simply because youth voters will stay home while old voters will show up at the polls and vote their guy into office.

It costs almost nothing to vote and to encourage others to vote as well. So do it. It is irresponsible to spread the idea that voting is meaningless without also attaching the context that if you don't vote, you have no power at all.

This is a proceeding in federal court, but the president's pardon power doesn't extend to civil cases anyway. Or at least until the Supreme Court rules that it does.

European and American banks won't lend a single penny to Trump. He's a notorious deadbeat who never pays what he owes. But Russian banks will happily lend him as much money as he wants. All they ask is that he kindly direct all repayment payable to the order of the Kremlin. The repayment doesn't need to be money, they're flexible.

Trump had a whole book of detailed plans for what he wanted to do after he got into office. His entire agenda from day 1 to day infinity has been planned out by the Heritage Foundation. You may have heard of this project. It is supposed to take effect in 2025.

I don't think they are good plans, and you probably don't either, but they certainly were one of the plans of all time.

Harris has no clear agenda. Compare her to someone like Bernie Sanders who loudly proclaims his entire playbook on social media every morning. Sanders makes it clear about what he'd do if he was in change. The difference is pretty obvious.

Unfortunately, this person will soon hold the office of President of the United States, the most powerful office in the history of mankind, so we must consider it.

Trump considers himself a businessman and a deal maker at heart. Ukraine is on the auction block. Shall we start the bidding at... ten billion euros?

Oh, what's this? Putin bids eleven billion?

Tough luck, Zelenskyy...

I believe EU leaders have already made this calculation. If you prove willing to bribe him this year, why wouldn't he ask for double the amount next year? You can never buy a corrupt politician. You can only rent him.

At that point, why not just take that money and invest in your own country's defence instead? Defence spending increases your own country's GDP and makes it so that you don't have to rely on whether Trump remembered that you paid him off just last week before asking for more.

I think a big reason why people were not excited to vote for Harris is because she really doesn't have any unique policies other than a general handwave in the direction of Joe Biden.

I'm not saying she's bad by any means, and she's definitely a lot better than Trump, but elections in the US are won and lost almost entirely on turnout rather than the quality of the candidate's proposed agenda. And people really just weren't interested in waiting in line to vote for a candidate who promises only good vibes, while being bombarded with attack adverts reminding them that a dozen eggs now costs a dollar more than it did last year.

If you lose a presidential race twice, you're done. Hillary lost twice, Bernie lost twice, and now Harris has lost twice. It was fun while it lasted, but the Democratic Party now needs to find a new leader who has some actual policies to run on.

EU countries have laws that prohibit its leaders from bribing foreign heads of government. Russia doesn't.