quindraco @ quindraco @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

764

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nope to both.

They're not banning people from providing money for bail, they're banning people from collecting money to pay bail without their local sheriff's permission. That's broadly legal for the same reason it's legal to have a law against fraud, it's just shitty behaviour.

Since when does human trafficking aid the victims?

If you think "where's" and "gas" are morally equivalent words in that sentence, good news, your local neonazis are most likely recruiting and very excited to hear more about your opinions.

"Woke" means anything anyone wants it to mean at the time, so any claim you make about wokeism is devoid of importance, just any claim I make about it is. You could claim wokeism is responsible for colony collapse disorder in bees and I wouldn't be able to argue with you, it's an effectively meaningless word.

Where would you rather he have run to? As it is, Russia nearly extradited him back. Russia. The list of even unfriendlier places is short and all of them are truly bad places to be, like North Korea or Iran.

Nope. The additional thoughtcrime charge raises the crime to a felony.

"But quindraco, the first amendment guarantees freedom of thought and this should be a felony on its own merits regardless of the perp's personal opinions!"

You're not wrong, but Iowa doesn't seem to care.

Well, yeah. Now, Maine's SoS's stance would be relevant, since in her state, it's a SoS decision to remove him from the ballot. And the core of this case isn't Trump being removed - that's already been litigated. The core is ultimately whether or not Colorado (and by implication Maine and every other state) has the authority to kick someone off the ballot for being an invalid candidate.

If Scotus rules against Colorado, minors and immigrants will be allowed to get on the ballot. Schwarzenegger should run.

Don't forget, they alleged racism, not just any discrimination. They equated Islam with a race. I wonder what skin color they assume all muslims have.

It will never stop disappointing me when someone looks down on Snowden after all he gave up for your benefit.

If you watch the video of them whining at the staffer who kept them out, it's full of gems:

1. They claim Islamophobia is a kind of racism; presumably you could blow their mind by showing them a white Muslim, a black Muslim, and an East Asian Muslim hanging out.
2. They casually assume the staffer is LGBTQ based on their lisp.
3. They loudly claim to be wearing hijabs, but never point the camera at themselves, so there's no evidence they have hijabs on.
4. As you highlight, it's them insisting they're being excluded due to their hijabs. The staffer never explains why (and it's self-evident from the video that this is because they're being too confrontational, so the staffer decided to check out of the conversation rather than engage - when they ask, it's disingenuous and inflammatory).

There's an absolute shitshow of a news and politics sub I'm on where the chief mod posted the clip of this on Twitter, as if that qualified as news.

The article specifically explains that the judge explicitly addressed that.

That sort of appeal has a close to 100% failure rate. How do you know he hasn't tried that and gotten nowhere? On top of that, he'd need to hire new lawyers, which is bound to be slow if he can even manage it.

Barring people from running because you dislike their platform is as fascist as it gets.

So ridiculous that he's being charged with thoughtcrime. Why can't it just be a felony to destroy the statue without policing his opinions?

6 million in 3 years is ridiculous.

In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, I don't believe you.

If you live in a Communist state you won't exactly have any way to "opt out" of it any more than you can just "opt out" of paying taxes.

Why are you posting twitter videos to a news sub? Let alone videos that prove nothing beyond the fact that the speaker thinks Islam is a race, while making sensationalist claims about said video? This is the exact opposite of news.

Maybe read the article next time?

In early 2019, he ordered a vaporizer and CBD tinctures — which are taken orally — from an online retailer he considered reputable.

[...]

After a routine drug test came back positive for marijuana a few months later, he told supervisors that he had been using CBD and turned the products over to investigators. Lab tests showed that two contained less than 0.3 percent of THC, but one had a slightly elevated level: 0.35 percent, which was within the test’s 0.08 percent margin of error, according to Mr. Armour’s lawsuit.