Lurker > realnifty1

I don't think there is much fear of them saying a President has total immunity, I'm more concerned that they are willing to find a narrow ruling that says he is immune in all these instance. The old, we're not saying you are totally immune, but all this was fine.

divot1338 posted...

Its really a trade reciprocity issue more than anything.

Ill post again the list of all American media companies allowed to operate in China.

Im done.

Oh yeah, China bad, we should definitely be exactly like them, that will show them.

Too limp, so I just order them well done and then they are better than just about any other place.

CableZL posted...

Gag order hearing coming up. I'll happily allow Judge Merchan to beat my expectations, but I'm not gonna expect anything more than the $1000 fine.

I think it will be quite a bit more, but jail time is not going to be on the table for the first violation.

Family Guy, one more season and then it will go away

Amakusa posted...

A hung jury leading to a mistrial does not lead to double jeopardy because that result brings the trial to a standstill with no resolution. Double Jeopardy applies when there's a final resolution to the case. Their actual angle from that point would be to go after the judge or the prosecutor for procedural violations.

As it stands today, but you didn't read my whole post, but now I have time to source it so hopefully you can understand it better.

The foundation for retrial is from 1824, US vs Perez, which ruled based not on the Constitution but rather English Common Law that jeopardy does not attach until the verdict is rendered.

However, in Downum v US (1963), Crist v Bretz (1978), and Martinez v Illinois (2014), the Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal rule for trial by jury is that jeopardy attaches when a trial jury is sworn.

Should any of Donald's jury trials end in a mistrial or hung jury you can guarantee that he will take any attempts to re-try him to the SC and there is a very good chance he wins given which way they lean.

Amakusa posted...

No, it's not. Mistrials can be tried again. For one or both side(s) that can be detrimental to their case just as much as it could help them.

Well, maybe can be retried, it is about as settled as Roe v Wade was. The basing for hung juries and mistrials to be retried was on a ruling that decided that jeopardy is not attached until the verdict is decided. But more recent than that the Supreme Court has ruled jeopardy attaching when the jury is seated.

So should there be a hung jury or mistrial, fully expect a case before the SC on DJT claiming double jeopardy.

I wanna see his beans.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Youd never make it in the nba because you cant defend any of the players and your shot would get blocked most of the time

If you are taller than average you won't have any real problem getting a shot off, especially since you know you can't miss so you are only worrying about not getting blocked. Defense is a little more troublesome, but there are plenty of not great defenders in the league, so if you can get ok at playing your zone you are absolutely. Hell if it was somehow known you can't miss you could probably just get paid to be an end of game clutch shooter.

Tyranthraxus posted...

tbh not sure why I said 10 days but they are giving him time to correct, I just don't know how long. Here's the source:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-york-supreme-court-temporarily-rejects-trump-s-175m-bond-paperwork-over-missing-details/ar-BB1l65pv

So that is around a clerical, hey you didn't give us all the things you were supposed to. James also filed a motion about whether the Knight Group is legally allowed to post the bond and Engoron has scheduled a hearing on that matter for April 22nd.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/05/possible-trump-bond-rejection/73216105007/

Whether failure to meet procedure or disqualification of Knight will give him another bite at the apple to post bond before James can start collecting assets is a big I don't know.

So instead we are going to vote for Trump who is in favor of ...*checks notes* ... genociding even harder.

Truly a moment of be quiet the adults are speaking here.

mystic_belmont posted...

Trying that in a civil suit is dumb, trying it for a criminal trial is insanity.

I think it is just that they know they have a losing case, so barring some bat shit crazy immunity hail mary all they have is trying to convince the populace that he is being railroaded.

voldothegr8 posted...

By law in most states objectively true. The merging lane must yield to the trough lane. Nobody is obligated to let those fuckers in. Honestly it's the over polite fucks who are gumming up the works letting them in.

Please name a state, because I couldn't find one.

If we ramped up pushing treason charges and backed those convictions up with the death penalty, would that be enough to get the loonies in line again or have we just gone too far?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This is the real answer, unless you really really need a car and have no other way.
Like if you had bought 100k of an index fund 20 years ago it would be worth about 300k today. Future you would feel a lot more secure.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

tldr; Middle-income households those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income had incomes ranging from about $48,500 to $145,500 in 2018

voldothegr8 posted...

In my state teaching that would contradict the law. The merging lane must yeild to the through lane. Pretty sure most states are the same. A few weird ones state neither have right away.

Do you mind saying what state, because a quick look didn't turn up any states where what you said is true, but I only looked at 5 states quickly.

Free flowing traffic, merge when clear.
Congestion, zipper at the merge point.

They really should make it part of the driver examination.

ClayGuida posted...

I'm still curious as to why his tax valuation is low but his credit valuation is high.

You pay taxes on what something is worth, not what you say it's worth. You can't tell the state or city that your home is worth $10,000 and expected to get taxed on that then turn around and leverage it as worth tens of millions. That's not how property taxes work.

If MAL is worth 18 billion, then his property tax in WPB should be astronomical, not lower than what I pay for a 1800 square foot house.

You don't tell the State what your property is worth for purposes of property tax, they tell you, and then you can argue with them if you think the assessor was too high. Trump's numbers though are business valuations, so the value of the property plus whatever income it can generate. So the State likely values all of his properties much lower than what he is using in his business valuations ( in of itself not unusual, local assessors generally undervalue properties against what it would really get on the market) and he has an outlandish sense of self worth and penchant for outright lying that drive his figure for income generated to astronomical proportions.

Those other business owners hand-wringing about they could be next is because it is pretty much standard to lie on all these things because they are derived from assessments and not facts, but Trump took it to a whole new level of bullshit. Hopefully not all of them are as crooked as him, but well...

Looks like another live service battle pass thing, I thought everyone hated those?

Maybe he should try referencing good movies?

ClayGuida posted...

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/18/supreme-court-new-mexico-griffin-00147547

Make it make sense. Supreme Court rules that this guy can't run for politics but Trump can.

You can't really, but their reasoning will be that it is an election purely within the state. The problem with that of course is that a presidential election is also entirely within a state, there exists no such thing as a federal ballot.

Ivany2008 posted...

Then I guess me being able to afford a 200k home on a salary of 20k was a fucking dream then. Pretty realistic because it lasted 7 years.

To be fair, when you write out like that it does sound like you dreamed it. Unless there are other contributing factors even a 2% interest rate makes that virtually impossible.

Robot2600 posted...

No it's not "possibly illegal" it's 100% illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other things I'm sure.

"Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age."

https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

And if you would have just spent a little more time looking since I had, you know, specific numbers in my post you would have found:
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/coverage-businessprivate-employers

If a complaint against a business (or some other private employer) involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, disability or genetic information, the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has 15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's also completely illegal lol

She's bragging about breaking the law. Her career should absolutely be destroyed based on that video.

Possibly illegal, depends on how large the place was. Equal employment things require at least 15 full time employees before you are bound by them.

Sounds like a you problem, everybody else over here doing fine.

The racial divide is encouraged in order to keep the lower class divided against themselves, which is all the ruling class really care about.

Like yes, some have taken it really to heart, but the whole point of the othering was to keep them from realizing how fucked they were getting. See all the immigrant rhetoric currently and throughout history, it is just diversion, don't blame the rich for your problems it's all these others that are keeping you down, not us.

Seamen remake using generative AI

C_Pain posted...

Reddit wouldn't shut up about this years ago but nothing seemed to change. When am I going to be charged to visit each individual site?

That's not exactly how it will work. ISP's go to Netflix and say, hey you are using too much of our bandwidth, pay us more or we throttle you. Either Netflix pays or your experience gets worse, and if Netflix does pay then guess what happens to subscription prices.

We are a long way from every website having a subscription fee, but it is where the road eventually leads. For now it is just anything that becomes really popular with high bandwidth usage that will have the ISP's lean on them for extra money.

Most important thing for corpo's in this situation is to boil the frog slowly so you don't notice until it is too late, think about how micro-transactions and battle passes for live service games have crept into the gaming industry.

Toonstrack posted...

Theres a difference between having qualifications and being able to restrict citizens from voting for certain people.

What part of there is no federal requirement or right that you are able to vote for president at all did you not follow? Also, not being on the ballot does not prevent you from voting for them, it just means they aren't on the ballot. Now if they won without being on the ballot that would probably kick off a whole different legal question.

This is the entirety of what the Constitution has to say on the the mechanics of presidential election:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

It specifically enumerates that the State Legislature is entirely in charge of the manner in which Electors are appointed.

Do you think they made the wrong decision here?

In the strict terms of what the Constitution and Laws prescribe? Absolutely, this is completely legislation from the bench. With the Right having brought complete gridlock to Congress in the past 30 years they have continued to prey upon the unwritten norms that have held this Nation together because they know we are unable to actually pass any laws clarifying things and they have packed the SC enough to get a stamp when needed.

Toonstrack posted...

Can you cite this? I'm not asking in an argumentative sense but im interested to know where it says this. Because that seems to directly violate the first amendment.

I don't have time to quote it all right now, but may try to later. But, it essentially comes down to the only thing enumerated in the Constitution and subsequent law is that each State will decide on electors to send to the Continental Congress. There are provisions on requirements and disqualifications for whom can be a president, but because national law makes no provision about people actually voting for a president, there are no provisions about how a presidential ballot is run. Already every State has their own organization with differing rules and requirements for being placed on the ballot.

So you were betting on this ruling being so catastrophically bad and resulting in so much chaos that SCOTUS would've been forced to amend the constitution?

Betting? No, the SCOTUS is always self serving and this one doubly so. I'm just continually appalled by the bold faced hypocrisy and that seemingly we will do nothing about until the whole country collapses.

Toonstrack posted...

This decision decides whether or not individual states can try and restrict their citizens from voting for their preferred candidates.

The problem with this, is that is exactly what the Constitution says States can do in plain text. This is the whole reason we don't have a national public election.
Yes, it would have led to insanity, and would have hopefully forced Congress to make a true national election process without electors and State interference bullshit.

I'm mostly sick of "Originalists" on the bench who are happy to find intent the second it suits them, but remain steadfast to the specific words when it will strip people of protections.

LeoRavus posted...

So was the other topic a typical example of the internet misquoting or were they testing public reaction?

I would think it was an actual mis-report. The business model of fast food doesn't really support surge pricing. Surge pricing exist to help offset demand so that a provider can keep up ( and with something like ride share it is also to entice more drivers to hop on ). In fast food they are most profitable when the store is slammed.because labor utilization is higher and a full parking lot/drive-thru acts as a limiting factor without needs to increase pricing.

If anything they would want to raise prices when it is slow, because that is when they are more likely to be losing money as labor costs are exceeding the revenue generated.

If you have an email associated with it you can contact support and they will remove the token from the account.

LeoRavus posted...

Wait this is real?

Real in that it is part of the tax code for the above mentioned reasons.

Not real in that the IRS isn't reminding anyone, some rando just went and looked it up and posted it.

This dude is gonna swing for this right? Like how much clearer can you treason.

Power going out without a tripped breaker is a bad sign. That energy is going somewhere and you could be at risk for a fire.

Geiki_Ganger posted...

Not really, finding of guilt is not required for 14th amendment purposes.

The main issue has always been whether a state can decide on behalf of the country who can go on a federal presidential ballot, given that the consequence has nationwide consequences.

That's not quite accurate thanks to the insanity of our presidential election process. Voting on election day for President you are not voting in a nationwide ballot, you are voting in a statewide election for the electors who will go on to vote for the President at the Electoral College meeting.

To this point, there is no such thing as a Federal presidential ballot, every hopeful candidate must meet the filings, requirements, and deadlines set out by each state in order to be on their ballot. R's & D's are large organizations and take care of this nationwide for them, but it is not unusual for 3rd party candidates to only appear on a portion of State ballots.

Given that State ballots are State business I honestly think a State could exclude anyone from the ballot for little to no reason. I don't believe there is a Right to run for President, so unless they violated some other Right by removing you it should be fair game.

Unfortunately this is the Republicans yet again testing the boundaries of a system that has been mostly held together by tradition instead enumeration. There really is no right answer here as no one ever really thought something like this could be an issue.

The 14th is just vague enough about who is supposed to decide that someone "engaged in insurrection" that the SC could say it was not the Colorado courts place to make that decision. I do think a critical point to them falling that way though is they would need to clearly illuminate who it is that has the job of making that determination.

He thought eight years of being president was enough for him.

I think the SC will decline to take on the appeal, I even imagine that was the reasoning behind deferring taking the case up initially when Jack Smith tried to jump to the end. The conclusion is so obvious that I just don't think the SC wanted their names on the line of the decision fearing retribution given that they are more public figures. Or in some cases the blowback from friends/donors/friendly donors.

Also this will let Trump to continue to rage on about how his rights are being violated since the SC didn't hear his appeal.

I've likely seen more boobs than every male ancestor I have combined.