pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
No bio...
User ID: 278
In 2025, there were roughly 15,000 violent crimes in the entire state of Minnesota. Let us assume all of them occurred in Minneapolis, all of them were committed by a different illegal immigrant who was immediately released on bail or sentenced to ten minutes by liberal activist judges and then released, and all of those illegals reside in Minneapolis today. 170 murderers, 2159 rapes, 2836 robberies, 9826 aggravated assaults, all of them committed by a different illegal immigrant who is now at large in Minneapolis.
ICE has deployed approximately 3000 federal agents to Minneapolis. Supposing ICE is in fact, after the bad guys, they should probably be done by now, because they only had to arrest five people each in order to get all of the highly criminal illegals out.
This doesn't make sense to me. Why is 2025 a relevant time period? If someone commits crimes in 2016 and is still in the country with a valid final order of deportation, they should be allowed to stay? It's important to remember that deportation is not a punishment. Deporting people with final orders and criminal records is about prioritizing removal of people who have demonstrated that even beyond immigration law, they are not willing to comply with our rules. The rest also have no just cause or right to stay, but their removal is less urgent if they are avoiding victimizing other Americans.
I am not sure there is a statue against annoying and frustrating law enforcement. Perhaps if they coordinated to prevent the arrest of anyone specific, that could be an obstruction charge.
There are definitely local laws against stalking and harassment, and obstruction of law enforcement does not need to be physical. However, it seems extremely unlikely that charges will be pursued.
There might be an independent causal factor.
Summer: Gin and Tonic
Autumn: Brandy Old Fashioned
Winter: Hot tea toddy
Spring: White Russian
After a discussion with work colleagues about old games that hang around, I fired up EVE Online for the first time in about 15 years. I remember trying it briefly, finding it far too dull, and moving on. But coming back to it now at a different point in my life, it definitely hits differently. It looks nice and it has a variety of progression options, but it also doesn't demand twitch reflexes and fast reaction. You can choose to do things that take time but not much attention, or things that require attention and go faster. I'm certain I've slowed down considerably and it matches my pace a little more. I think I might stick with it for a little bit
True - I was assuming for some reason they were only recording deltas but it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be some measurement against a baseline. ETA: I guess if that's the case, then I don't understand how it would be possible to disregard measurements under the "less than 1/8 inch" policy and have them end up moving to the point of failure, unless through complete dereliction.
I am not an expert on railway safety but presumably there is some tolerance for these gaps, below which changes are not concerning.
Changes are essentially summed vectors. 1/8" or less of a change from month to month is almost never going to be a problem. 10 of those negligible movements in a row, in the same direction, is a massive problem! But if you didn't update the documented measurement, because each time you checked, it had changed 1/8" or less, you would never even know that your position had drifted by an entire inch from your documentation. The only non-negligent way I can think of to track the sum of many small vectors is to record the actual measurement every time.
When he says he doubts we will come to america's aid, insult aside, that means america possibly won't come to ours.
This is reality. Trump is dispensing with some of the polite fictions because they are distorting peoples' perception of actual reality. In reality, there are not many scenarios where Europe can possibly come to America's aid in any substantive way other than moral support, regardless of treaty obligations. That's Europe's choice, and for better or worse it makes them a much less valuable ally.
All of those would rapidly result in the whole world looking for a better deal with a new protector.
By their own admission, they are already doing this. American forbearance is so implicitly assumed that this is not anticipated to have any further negative consequences, I guess.
Every since I dabbled in chainmail fabrication, I've been tempted to learn crochet, but I can't offhand think of a less manly thing for a man to attempt, including having sex with other men.
[intended reply]
I think we need to be able to make policy around the Greenland territorial waters. Exactly who is allowed to do what there under international law is immensely consequential.
That genuinely would be a casus bellum though
Buy a boat and take it out boating. It will easily suck up any spare time, money, ambition, and desire. Bonus: you can wear a captain's hat.
True, but the original streetcar suburbs have largely been absorbed into the major metro areas they once sat outside of. The outer ring suburbs came after the construction of the freeways and the days of rage
Generally, if they're cooperative enough to unlock it for you, they would already have been cooperative enough to get out.
ETA: Much safer for the driver to smash the passenger side window.
For years and years, saying positive things about the US in certain fora was almost guaranteed to get a reply with this link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk?si=IUMfHBNYz1GPtRdn
For better or worse, this is what a lot of people think of when asked to imagine how liberals feel about the country.
ETA: This and Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States
The convention should be that any person should be able to assume that someone will not try to murder them.
I look at the beggar and my immediate sentiment is, in a world that had its shit together this guy would be my neighbor. Not a close friend, necessarily, but a neighbor, someone on my street. What would I do for a neighbor who'd abruptly lost his home or all his savings or something?
Why, specifically, a neighbor? Out of sheer statistical likelihood, this is extremely improbable. He would almost certainly be one of the billions of people in the world you never met and never will.
And it's a small thing, but it's a small thing that they didn't dare hope for when they strapped in for another cold afternoon spent standing around on a street corner pleading silently for a pittance, and suddenly it's there in their hands. There's just no feeling like this, the feeling that just for a moment something fundamentally wrong with the world has been healed
I have a hard time believing any of this interaction you are describing actually happened, because this reads like fiction. How do you know what they hoped for and what went through your minds? You didn't, you're simply writing a morality play with yourself as the altruistic moral savior of humanity.
I certainly understand the impulse to want to make the world a marginally nicer place, but I do it by doing things for friends and family and actual neighbors. I do it for people I know personally who are more blameless than not for their own misfortune. Because I know in my bones that no matter how good the world is, yes, even in literal Star Trek Utopia, there will inevitably be some shitty people in it, utility monsters who intuitively victimize themselves of their own free will, and if I spend my time enabling their shittiness, all I've probably done is make the world a marginally worse place. The beautiful thing is my vision of ethical behavior also universalizes, because if everyone tends to their own garden as well as that of the people they personally know, it's only the antisocial who are excluded from the benefits of society, which is just.
Then why are the police told not to do it?
Health and safety
What does it accomplish?
Reduces lost-time accidents and cuts down on paperwork.
If it was reasonable for him to think he was going to die the second the car started moving, how is that consistent with the idea that it wasn't reckless to stand there?
Undertaking a calculated risk is not inherently reckless. If it were, police would never engage in any interactions. The overwhelming majority of people do not in fact drive their vehicles at police.
You don't have to be under arrest for a police officer to be able to issue you a lawful order to exit a vehicle or move out of the way. If you decide you don't want to, then you are obstructing and that is legitimate cause for arrest.
Often, police don't like announcing someone is under arrest until they are in custody or at least a controlled situation, because it tends to increase the odds that someone will flee or start to fight.
So, in the first case, it's hard to say for sure but it's plausible that this woman has been given lawful orders to exit her vehicle and not done so. The next step is forcible removal, which necessitates breaking the window if it is rolled up.
In the second case, shoving someone out of the way who is deliberately obstructing them is perfectly reasonable, and a lesser use of force than arresting then. The proximity of the bus is less than ideal, but mistakes are inevitable.
"As much as we can" logically implies "everything except what you need." It's slavery.
Is a volunteer at an animal rescue center a slave to injured puppies?
Is the taxpayer, whose earnings are confiscated to pay for it?
People who make money through business are not "exploiting" society and greedily stealing from everyone else, but contributing to society through providing goods and services.
That is no longer true in the current world of extremely progressive taxation and extremely profligate social welfare spending.
- Prev
- Next

We tried that, and look where it got us. If there is a better option, I don't know how to achieve it without writing it into law and enforcing it rigorously.
More options
Context Copy link