In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
On the sad <-------> funny spectrum, making stuff up and posting it is much closer to the sad side.
type "should women be allowed to vote" into twitter search and get back to me on this one chief
"Not that many people think that"
Whatever the absolute amount of people who think like that is, its way too much, and they are literally all MAGA
Sure there's fringe people that think that. There's fringe people on all sides that think a bunch of crockpot things. Claiming those are the thoughts of the broader group misleading at best.
type "should women be allowed to vote" into twitter search and get back to me on this one chief
"Not that many people think that"
Whatever the absolute amount of people who think like that is, its way too much, and they are literally all MAGA
I used to be able to type "is the earth flat?" And get a neverending stream of content showing me exactly that.
But if true, the dems got something they can run on to get the popular vote.
My dad certainly thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I've been assured he's only slightly right wing.
My dad certainly thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I've been assured he's only slightly right wing.
Its probably an enormous amount if we straped everyone to a lie detector test. My point is that typing a question or concern into the internet when it functions off of confirmation bias isnt the best way to assess something like this.
Mainly for Rococo. Re our occasional conversation on jury nullification:
Thought it was interesting that it just popped up in a real case "Palestine Action activists cleared of aggravated burglary at Israeli defence firm site"
During the trial one juror asked the judge whether it would count as a lawful excuse if a defendant believed they were performing a life-saving action by destroying weapons used to kill civilians in an illegal genocide. Johnson said it would not, but Menon reminded the jurors of their absolute right to acquit.
Menon is the defense lawyer.
Looks like the defense were allowed to remind the jury that they are above what the law says when it comes to making a verdict. Which I still argue is part of the correct role of juries (whatever judges think about it)
Point would be much better taken if it was
Hey here's an article about potential problems for married women voting under the SAVE Act.
When it's unnecessarily prefaced with: magas don't want women to vote, it devalues the rest of the content.
Mainly for Rococo. Re our occasional conversation on jury nullification:Thought it was interesting that it just popped up in a real case "Palestine Action activists cleared of aggravated burglary at Israeli defence firm site"
Menon is thFirst, this is a UK case, not a U.S. case. I've never expressed an opinion on what sorts of arguments might be allowed in a UK criminal proceeding because I am not familiar enough with UK criminal proceedings to have an informed opinion.
Second, I can't draw any conclusions from this article. The defense attorney might have said something as basic as "it isn't the job of the judge or the prosecutor to decide whether to convict or acquit the defendant. That's your job." Or the defense attorney might have said something as explicit as "I know the judge told you that XYZ isn't a lawful excuse, but if you want to ignore what the judge told you about the law and return a verdict because of XYZ, that's your prerogative." I suspect it was closer to the former than the latter, but as I said, I don't know UK procedure well enough to have an informed opinion. The latter sort of argument definitely would not be permitted in the U.S.
I have nothing to add to our earlier discussions about whether the latter sort of argument should be allowed.
Sure there's fringe people that think that. There's fringe people on all sides that think a bunch of crockpot things. Claiming those are the thoughts of the broader group is misleading at best.
Just a fringe rightoid with a million followers and 50k daily viewers
Maybe your comment makes sense if you just include all of MAGA as fringe
First, this is a UK case, not a U.S. case. I've never expressed an opinion on what sorts of arguments might be allowed in a UK criminal proceeding because I am not familiar enough with UK criminal proceedings to have an informed opinion.Second, I can't draw any conclusions from this article. The defense attorney might have said something as basic as "it isn't the job of the j
My point is always about justice. Not contingent matters about what system is in place. Systems are often bad - plea bargaining for example.
The authorities and judges really don't like jury nullification here either. They claim it isn't allowed.
Anyway i thought it was intersting. Sorry to bother you.
My point is always about justice. Not contingent matters about what system is in place. Systems are often bad - plea bargaining for example.
The authorities and judges really don't like jury nullification here either. They claim it isn't allowed.
Anyway i thought it was intersting. Sorry to bother you.
Plea bargaining is bad?
Kind of crazy how many people are lamenting Bezos destroying WaPo without even considering that he did it on purpose
Its probably an enormous amount if we straped everyone to a lie detector test. My point is that typing a question or concern into the internet when it functions off of confirmation bias isnt the best way to assess something like this.
I think it would be fairly low but ask should a woman be president...
I mispoke. Bad doesn't cover it. It's more like being evil in itself and in supporting a system of deep injustice.
Kind of crazy how many people are lamenting Bezos destroying WaPo without even considering that he did it on purpose
It is sad, but it is also a good thing in a way. The whole debacle with the editorial board pressured into not publishing their endorsement in the presidential race was a disgrace, and moved WaPo from being a newspaper into being a billionaire's personal pamphlet. Such a tool is worse if it has a veneer of serious newspaper over it.
It is okay to lament the loss of what used to be a decent newspaper, but that is not what it has been for the last few years.
I realize that plenty of people are eager to tell me that it always was propaganda and all media is like that, but my experience is that the people eager to scream that message from the rooftops generally live on an intellectual diet of media with undisclosed ownership and interests, which is even worse.
My point is always about justice. Not contingent matters about what system is in place. Systems are often bad - plea bargaining for example.
The authorities and judges really don't like jury nullification here either. They claim it isn't allowed.
Anyway i thought it was intersting. Sorry to bother you.
I'm not mad you posted the article. I was just responding. I thought you were revisiting the question of whether it was allowed, at least in the UK.
It doesn't seem particularly good, does it? Hints at a conveyor belt style form of justice.
ACLU aren't keen on it.
I remember having the "San Francisco is a shithole" conversation with the "centrists" last year
20 million illegal immigrants gets repeated everywhere. Lozen says its 20 million, Scott Jennings says 20 million, Miller, Trump, etc.
Is it just something that has been said so much that people are repeating it?
20 million illegal immigrants gets repeated everywhere. Lozen says its 20 million, Scott Jennings says 20 million, Miller, Trump, etc.
Is it just something that has been said so much that people are repeating it?
Can anyone know an actual number. Yes we know all the ones that claimed asylum or were caught crossing. How do you count all the ones that crossed and encountered no border services.
20 million is an estimate. We do know 233,000 undocumented kids are unaccounted for
Lets not forget how many illegal CDN's crossed into the USA and have blended in nicely . The number may be as high as 15 million
Can anyone know an actual number. Yes we know all the ones that claimed asylum or were caught crossing. How do you count all the ones that crossed and encountered no border services. 20 million is an estimate. We do know 233,000 undocumented kids are unaccounted for Lets not forget how many illegal CDN's crossed into the USA and have blended in nicely . The number may be as hig
So in other words, you are completely pulling the number out of your ass
There have been 12-15 million illegals in the country for 25 years or more now
So when people say 20 million illegals, they obviously mean 20 million new illegals
But the actual numbers dont even show 20 million total illegals in the US
So its just absolute nonsense
