Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OL
Posts
0
Comments
1,566
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Literally the only answer to this question, though. He can't say he will pardon him, politically it would be terrible and it might impact the trial itself. And he can wait until after the election and pardon him then, even though it will mean he was lying now.

    I don't think this comment is particularly newsworthy.

  • It's not "above the law" when the penalty is still within the range of punishments listed in the law broken. The former president and/or nominee would still be punished according to the law, just at the lower bound allowed by judicial discretion.

  • I know what I'm about to say is not going to get a ton of love here buuuut....

    I'd argue that if you're a former president, you SHOULD get deferential sentencing. Too much potential for abuse otherwise. Imagine if Trump won in 2024 and suddenly Biden's document retention case got re-opened and he got the harshest possible sentence.

    Similarly but separately, major party nominees should get deferential sentencing. It's an influence on the political process, and you should err on the side of having less influence. If you lock up a nominee so they can't campaign, it's not really a fair election. ESPECIALLY when it's a crime from 8 years ago.

    Like, still get sentenced within the guidelines of the crime, but just towards the more lenient edge. If someone is guilty of murder you can't NOT put them in prison. But if the penalty for the crime doesn't require prison, it's quite a leap to get to prison on a former president, current nominee.

  • In general, my take is that people should be entitled to a warning, but if they still want to do something to themselves that is a really bad idea and the impact is pretty much on them, well...

    This literally is the status quo.

    The problem is that the impact is not only on them. There are people who are immunocompromised, particularly the elderly and cancer patients undergoing chemo, and children too young to get various vaccines, and they rely on herd immunity to avoid getting these diseases that might kill them or get them seriously ill or complicate their medical situation. So it's specifically societies most vulnerable populations that are harmed, which is bad, not to mention the possibility that with enough spread the viruses could mutate and get around vaccines which would threaten everyone else.

    And then you have to weigh those real harms against...what, exactly? People just...don't want to? Because of their incorrect belief that the vaccines are more harmful than helpful?

    The government exists to handle externalities like contagion and pollution and caring for vulnerable groups. Arguably, we should be a lot harsher on requiring vaccinations, like how we were on polio. But we aren't.

  • It was very frustrating that just like what happened with "fake news" which was originally used to describe false news articles generated usually to help Trump, the same thing happened with the concept of a two-tier justice system. Originally describing how wealthy people like Trump don't get the same justice that poor people do, now Republicans are trying to use it to describe Republicans getting charged for things Democrats wouldn't be.

  • They passed a constitutional amendment in Florida to let felons vote, a couple years ago. The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn't a problem for Trump.

  • Hawking gets a Covid sample from a time traveler in 2009 and immediately travels to the Wuhan lab to study it and look for a cure, he successfully delays the pandemic and he almost gets to a cure but a bad guy time traveler comes to kill him in 2018 and without the watchful eye of Stephen Hawking, the world falls to chaos.

    I'd watch that movie.

  • I do like the idea of making Idaho more symmetrical.

    Doesn't seem like this would have much of an impact federally, it's not like trying to form a new state where you'd get new Senators who agree with you. These people probably agree with Idaho Senators and not Oregon but their move wouldn't change the composition.

  • Not for House or Senate. Age just isn't a close enough metric for what you're trying to fix.

    If you're concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.

    If you're concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn't grant too high of an incumbent advantage.

    SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.

  • I find it hard to believe that, outside of work computers, many people would be choosing Windows over Mac or Linux, especially is AI is their goal.

    I'm sorry, why? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI and has begun integrating it into their products. Apple doesn't have any AI capabilities beyond Siri.