UmeU @ UmeU @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

311

Joined

2 yr. ago

Political nihilism doesn’t grant you a clear conscience.

I'd rather live on the false hope of a better world than the false hope of a not-even-worse one.

This is not the choice you have, that’s my point.

Your choices are false hope of a better world, or the reality of a not-even-worse one.

One of the two will win, and one of the two is certainly worse.

For the both of them

The thing about Mongolians is that their barbecue is not the traditional Korean barbecue.

I am curious… do you think that there is any realistic chance that someone other than the two main candidates will win the upcoming election?

Wouldn’t you agree that this ‘change’ of being able to vote for a candidate who both deserves the position and also actually has a chance of winning, is not going to happen this year regardless of how you vote?

Unless something major happens very soon, it’s going to be one or the other. Most voters are not happy with this reality, particularly Biden voters, but this is the reality we find ourselves in.

I am happy to hear you express a desire to end the genocide and destruction of Palestine. A large portion of Biden voters agree with you on that point.

Other than his age and his ‘soft on Israel’ position, I happen to think Biden has done a decent job. But let’s assume I am wrong and he has done a terrible job. Would he be worse than trump? Would trump be worse?

Would you agree or disagree that, like it or not, we are in a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation?

Here is your chance to prove that you are not just a troll. These are genuine question which I hope you will answer honestly, however you may truly feel.

If you prefer trump, just say it, you have the right to your opinions. Pulling the ‘genocide Joe - vote third party’ card comes across as disingenuous, far-right propaganda.

We need some 1500sqft 2br/2ba homes near major metro areas for under 400k. In today’s economy that would be achievable for most people.

The only options near major cities are 2500+sqft homes or 650sqft condos going for $700k+.

I don’t think I have ever seen a 2br/2ba detached home… it’s either shoebox condos or 4+ bedrooms going for the same ridiculous 700k+ price tag.

I think it was the great philosopher Eric Cartman who said it best

“You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely a soft pussy protestor, but Biden is clearly having his cake and eating it too.

No worries, the case was complex for sure.

The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.

For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.

For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.

The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.

Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.

The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.

Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.

All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.

First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.

I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.

They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.

I also watched every moment of his trial.

I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.

Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.

From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.

The defense opened the door by going down a line of questioning which would permit the prosecution to cross based on texts which were previously ruled off limits. She was given a chance to move on to a different line of questioning, but she (defense attorney) insisted on continuing with that line of questioning, with full knowledge that all of the texts would then be admitted, just so she could make her point about the witness potentially being intimidated by the police.

She was trying to say that the witness was threatened with loosing his job, in reality the witness was intimidated about his wife finding out he was having an affair with the defendant.

After the dramatic exchange between defense and prosecution where the prosecution insisted that the judge force the defense to clearly state that thy are ok with the full text exchange being admitted, she agreed, saying “I have no problem with all of the texts being admitted, I have no problem with opening the door”

Her next question to the witness was “did you feel that the police were intimidating you by telling you that you might loose your job”… he responded “no.” So there was no payoff for the defense on that line of questioning. Then the prosecution asked during cross “were you worried about your wife finding out that you were having an affair with the defendant” and he replied “yes”.

Classic case of don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.

I didn’t read the article, I watched every moment of the trial.

Nofx - you’re wrong:

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks And you're wrong about trickle down economics If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers If you kill for the thrill of the hunt You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment And you're wrong if you don't question your government If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God Your religions are all flawed You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow A victim of Cointelpro You're wrong and will probably never know

But if he never sees any consequences does it even matter? Hard to not be apathetic about this never ending clown show.

I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.

She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.

She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.

They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.

Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.

The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).

Abolish the monarchy!

I the best way to do it is to cook the kraft slices in hotdog water, then add the noodle until plump.

If you travel in the same plane all the time, and you own that plane, people will be able to track you. Why not just get a good contract with a private jet company so you can fly anonymously? Even if she wins this case, she will still be trackable until she takes advantage of any of the options she has at her disposal.

We are experiencing a lot of late stage capitalism issues.

With the increasingly valid excuse of uncertainty, mega corps ‘must’ make more money now because they don’t know what kind of economic hardships they will have to be prepared to endure in the future.

That risk is built into the cost of goods, and can’t easily be quantified, so a bill capping profit margins isn’t really feasible. And let’s not forget who really crafts legislation these days.

In my state, there is a limit to the number of liquor stores one person/corporation can own. They recently increased it from one to three. This law makes a lot more sense for housing than it does for liquor stores, but unfortunately there are too many billionaires with skin in the game.

A crash in housing prices comes with its own set of problems as well, so whatever changes are necessary, they should be taken slowly so as not to cause another collapse in the housing market. Home ownership is still the primary way for the average American family to develop any meaningful wealth, good or bad as that may be.

Whatever changes need to happen, they must be gradual and sustained over a long period of time. Massive and abrupt changes create instability which will have unanticipated consequences.

We want these mega corps to be like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. Eventually, monopolistic and racketeering like practices could be diminished while millions are lifted out of poverty. If it is to happen, it will take time.

If I were a betting man, I would say that meaningful change is unlikely. Mega corps will continue to squeeze every penny out of the people, leaving us only enough to continue buying their shit. Bernie may have been able to do it, but sadly that ship has sailed.

I actually had a pet moose named Sarah, but have never had a pet ant named Sarah so I can’t confirm this.

That’s true, and language is constantly evolving for sure. I just feel like AI is a bit misleading because it’s such a loaded term.