@anti_dan's banner p

anti_dan


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC

				

User ID: 887

anti_dan


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 20:59:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 887

The only thing related to Cohen's case that is relevant is that Cohen should not have been allowed to testify that he plead guilty, because it is blackletter law that co-defendant's convictions/pleas are inadmissible as evidence that the defendant currently on trial committed a crime, or even that the conduct was criminal. That alone, in a less controversial case, probably would be considered reversible error.

I find burglary very non-analogous, it being a malum in se crime. But even then if you think its a good analogy a person who is charged with burglary is allowed a defense along the lines of "it was cold outside, I was going to freeze to death, I broke in to be warm, there was no intent to commit a felony therein." Trump had an expert witness lined up that said there was no crime being covered up, and he was not allowed to testify.

The DOJ also was referred this conduct and did not charge it. Saying this was an election law violation requires a tortured interpretation of the statute, and arguably would have put Trump in a catch-22 situation where classifying the expense as a campaign expense would be illegal, but also not classifying it as a campaign expense was illegal.

Attempt crimes always have allowed for mistake of fact and are not given the same sentence as the crime itself. Not only is this set of facts enough to prove burglary, it also would prove attempted murder.

This is not akin to the Trump case, because in your case we would know that the alleged felony that the burglar had the mens rea to commit was murder. But in the current case, we do have an exact crime. Instead the prosecution waved at a bunch of statutes and said its possible that Trump committed those crimes (while they and the judge didn't let Trump put on an expert witness who would have said he, in fact, did not violate those laws). This is a novel application of the law in many ways, so its not really serious to compare it to burglary.

Nor even something else like criminal conspiracy, where again you need not succeed in robbing the bank, but it is enough for your gang to buy guns and masks and bags with money signs on them, then drive to the bank, go into the bank, and if you get arrested at the front door, you still are guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank. Again, totally unlike the current situation.

Plenty of subpopulations are welfare sucking despite being allowed to work and pay taxes. Statistically, Arab Palestinians would be so in a unified state.

Cuba during the Cuba missile crisis lacked 2/3 of your things that define a state. Did Cuba lack statehood?

Indeed, most states at war end up losing those things when they start losing the war. Which is what Gaza is doing. Its a state that is losing a war where it was the initial aggressor.

Why would that be so? Israel has no desire to create a class of welfare sucking Arabs.

None that I know of other than what I've heard out of the state's attorneys office which is that people from south of Mexico are now making up about 50% of felony DUIs

Well, at least statistically, that Venezuelan hasn't learned any lessons fleeing socialism and will try to impose a similar system here. So they weren't so much fleeing socialism as fleeing poverty created by their own (collective) choices.

It is necessary in the face of increased violence of the protests as well as the bizarro world prosecutors that bring cases against people being kidnapped.

Essentially, the reality is this article, but using the same stats to say the opposite: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2021/10/vehicle-rammings-against-protesters/tulsa/

This is also not "blocking roads" (although I oppose that as well and would defend criminal and civil immunity for rammers) the guy in this present case was carrying a rifle, the person in the "sob story" in that Globe article was part of a group that was throwing bottles and significantly damaged the truck in question. Its not that peaceful protests dont exist anymore, its that they cannot be a reasonable presumption, so the BOP needs to be shifted. And because prosecutors cant be trusted (the ABA and the profession as a whole are heavily partisan) places like Oklahoma and Florida are correct to protect drivers.

What we have right now is near total lawlessness in many states with regards to these riots. People have taken the peaceful protest meme/loophole from the media and attempted to turn it into the Chicxulub crater. My proposed pushback isn't even extreme, its temperate given the problem we are facing.

It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing.

Only in the barest sense. It is very important to note he was carrying while committing a crime that crime was false imprisonment and every "protestor" that stops traffic and begins to surround a vehicle should be so charged.

In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position!

Again no. While some jurisdictions would charge you with manslaughter or murder for ramming an illegal protest I think this is a genuine misapplication of prosecutorial discretion and we should probably have a federal civil rights banning such prosecutions. IMO any one whos car is stopped or is being threatened to be stopped by a riot is rightfully in fear of death or great bodily harm. See: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CCtoRHcyirs

I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?

Nope, like I said. He Foster forfeited his life rightfully when he join a mob attempting to intimidate and functionally imprisoning people.

Its not that rare, its just that people typically understand the formation as if it would be difficult to not be in that status anymore. Most high school boys are virgins. But they generally have no way of alleviating that. Any post pubescent girl can "fix" being a virgin by going up to an unattached guy and propositioning him.

#4 isn't a scalable option, if at all. You'd have to know the person's name and address, which RL would not know when a random group of 10 enters RL. Then you have to have the capacity to file the complaint. The average RL manager might be just competent enough to do that. B serve the defendants (expensive) then you still have to win that case. This takes the time of the manager, plus whatever employee who has to testify. And the employee probably has moved on from the job by then.

Plus cops don't get involved in people not paying small claims fees most of the time. We're at best some sort of hold on a person's bank account, and I suspect most of these red lobster fellows prefer the currency exchange and pillows.

They couldn't see that one coming at their giant company, that's been running all you can eat deals since my grandmother was taking me there as a kid? This is classic "loser execs blame others for their failures." Every restaurant to ever run an all-you-can-eat deal knows that the first thing you do is say, No Sharing on the menu, on the salad bar, and sometimes a couple other places in the restaurant. "Any Sharing of Salad Bar food will result in an additional salad bar order being charged." My local diner run by a greek dude from Lesbos knows that. How the fuck would Red Lobster not know that? Every all-you-can-eat buffet I've ever been to also reserves the right, on their menu, to cut you off. My concrete contractor and his sons had been thrown out of every smorgasbord in three counties.

But whose going to enforce this? If the people doing the 10 for 1 buffet option complain wont you have to call the police? And in major metros the police will not respond to such a complaint. And if they did, not for hours.

'the worst she can say is no, why don't you give it a whirl' the explanation is 'because then I won't be able to speak to anyone she knows ever again'. Sorry, rejections just aren't that awkward.

I want to +1 this.

And of course #metoo is in its usual formulation also delusionally neurotic.

And -1 this.

When I was in high school I literally dated my best friend's girlfriend's sister. We broke up like 2 years before they did. I saw all of them all of the time. It was fine. In college everybody I knew dated someone in their major at some point. It rarely ended in a blissful marriage. More often one of them ended the relationship and had an immediate fallback plan, which was the obvious cause of the breakup. We survived. Beer and vodka solve such things.

But me too. I was in school before that got big, mostly, and it is scary for good reason. I do know 2 male engineers who got expelled for 1 night stands at parties I was at. And they were drunk and the girl was drunk and they were like sloppily making out on the couch and then like a month later he gets a notice of a hearing.

I guess the real lesson is, of course, avoid hook ups, court a lass and you should be fine.

That would almost certainly ensure a DeSantis or Younkin presidency depending on the time the assassination happened (Younkin being more likely the closer the assassination is to election day). Which is probably even less palatable to these powers. The problem, after all, isn't Trump, its Trump's voters.

I'm pretty late seeing this but Haikyuu is a pretty well regarded anime based off a manga that was top 5 in sales in 2020 and top 10 a few other times.

Its also in the well worn Japanese sports genre where the artists and writers have really honed their craft as to how to make something as mundane as high school sports interesting.

Having updated, I yield to anti-dan that they are more than just technichally correct. They are also correct. I'll also yield to you, for now- that the grazing fields can't be repurposed. I'm skeptical of this but I don't have the means to do a counterfactual analysis on every field at this time.

This was my primary point. That most cows use mediocre land for much of their lives. Some probably do not. Its a big country. There are weird rents all over the place. But pure grain fed beef is way above average market price by 2-3x from what I see.

This seems like a non-sequitur. We aren't talking about things that are vaguely politically associated, but rather things that exist within the same particular moral niche.

Most cows don't eat cultivated plants for their entire diet. They graze on "free" grasslands.

I mean, lab grown meat is an "elite" thing though. Never heard someone stocking at a Wal Mart warehouse talk about it.

Brewing uses strong disinfectants (which meat cultures could also use between batches I suppose) and the yeast also has its own natural defenses against bacteria. Mushrooms also have their own natural defenses (nice rhetorical trick attempt with "mycoprotein" I suppose). The problem with meat is meat is not a full organism, its a part of an organism. It doesn't have a billion years of evolution on its side. You have to re-create that for the beef ribeye you are trying to recreate.

I can't help but be reminded of the law of undignified failure. Cultured meat has been a staple of the tech-futurist utopian memeplex for years, if not decades. Gallons of digital ink have been spilled discussing the feasibility and/or inevitability (or lack thereof) of cultured meat on places like the Effective Altruism Forum. Skimming through the top results, I don't see, "what if the proles hate our guts so much that they ban cultured meat out of spite?"

Is that what is happening. I have to assume its some meat lobby that got this bill written up an introduced, plus the general revulsion that you can gin up when a person thinks of a ball of meat in a bulb being massaged by a robot.

A huge problem with the new "refugee" populations as well.

So do we conclude Whites should logically just be "race-realist but not racist"? The problem is that even if we could magically snap our fingers to get to Walt's end-goal - this would still be anti-White. They both talk about being "harsh on crime" as though this just means we turn up a dial that puts more criminals (a disproportionate amount of whom are Black) into prison. But in practice, enacting any such policy basically has to make general society a lower trust (i.e. worse) place to live in. For some specific examples:

Very much agree.

One thing that is not talked about, in the context of high black crime. Is how much higher it actually is than the official statistics indicate. Even before BLM and Floyd made policing minor crime in black areas taboos, it already was not emphasized. Black neighborhoods regularly deteriorated into street parties of teens burning garbage and openly drinking and using drugs. Rapes were and are common, and never reported, in these fiery, but mostly peaceful (unironic use of the phrase), street gatherings. The only thing that gets the cops to intervene is a gunshot, where unless they catch a body, the perp is rarely caught.

Now, try to imagine a scene like that happening in a white neighborhood. You can't. 5 cop cars descend on a house in the burbs because its 10 PM and the music is a little loud.