snooggums @ snooggums @midwest.social

Posts

2

Comments

2,573

Joined

1 yr. ago

When you are president, they just let you sit on them.

Even with a full diaper!

The question about whether it was a bullet or shrapnel wouldn't even be in the news if Trump didn't insist on playing up being an inch from death. Either answer would have been far less important than being shot at but no, he had to make the question about what hit him a big deal.

There is also the voter suppression.

Look, if you want to get people to talk about your crimes you need to do a better job of taunting the police. Whining about it on Lemmy isn't going to make it happen.

In this case it is supposedly only about a law that limited the physical part, the case wasn’t about the details of the ban but the fact that the ban was combined with the abortion restrictions.

Gender-affirming healthcare includes emotional support and just treating someone as their self identified gender, not just physical treatments. In this case it is supposedly only about a law that limited the physical part, but the case wasn't about the details of the ban but the fact that the ban was combined with the abortion restrictions.

The court decided that although they were two things, both fall under healthcare so apparently that makes them the same thing.

Why would this be any different than the time he colluded with Russia on live TV, had a phone call recorded asking to change election results, intentionally retained national security documents after leaving office, rallying the mob that tried to stop the election results, or any of the other things we already have on record?

Oh, I forgot to include the part from Lincoln v. Cassidy which makes it even worse.

We conclude that Relator would be unable to sustain his burden to establish the procedurally barred claims that he was denied a constitutionally adequate trial, rendering it unnecessary to determine whether Relator has sustained his burden to establish a gateway to review those claims. Because the Missouri Supreme Court has not recognized a freestanding claim of actual innocence in cases where the death penalty has not been imposed, we are not at liberty to expand Missouri habeas jurisprudence to permit consideration of the claim in this case. Accordingly, Relator's habeas petition is denied.

When you read further into the weeds it gets even worse as there are apparently limitations on whether you can claim innocence depending on whether the trial was "constitutionally adequate" and when issues were raised. Just a bunch of excuses that procedure is more important than justice.

After wrapping up start another campaign!

Fatal Frame: Tarrasque Drift

From a different article, the reason is absolutely ridiculous.

Judge William Hickle agreed at a 2020 evidentiary hearing that a jury would likely find Dunn not guilty based on new evidence, ABC News reported. Hickle did not exonerate Dunn, however, citing the 2016 Missouri Supreme Court ruling from Lincoln v. Cassady that only death row inmates can make an innocence claim.

Which is funny because the guy from the rust belt is a running mate with guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth before it rusted.

Thank you!

The former president’s allies have acknowledged that nominating Vance was the product of Trump’s absolute certainty that he would be able to defeat Joe Biden in November.

I don't understand how they thought Vance be better against Biden.

Many candidates do both at the same time, even most of the horrible ones who are lying through their teeth.

The news tends to focus on the part that gets the eyeballs, which as you mentioned is our fault. But if they don't include their opponent's faults then it isn't clear why their thing that is supposed to help is better than the opponents thing that is claimed to help but would be a negative for the public.

ride-hailing

Taxis. Just call them taxis.

So, a mertaur?

Sounds like a pegacorn: Head of a pegasus and the body of a unicorn.

Who really cares if a president fudges the numbers on a mortgage application for a beach house?

Hopefully everybody else who is supposed to be punished for breaking the law. Honestly, if there are laws that aren't important enough to enforce when the president breaks them, they shouldn't be laws.

Now I get the worry about frivolous lawsuits, but it wasn't like that was an issue at all because our court systems favor the wealthy and powerful already. That is why the whole SCOTUS decision was bullshit just like the filibuster.

I hope it is a slow and agonizing death.

"If he goes free, then other falsely convicted black people will clog up the courts with appeals!"

Based on the quotes my guess is they want the end result and don't actually know what action they want to get there or don't want to box themselves in by stating something too specific.