The thing I’m noting is not the part about Harris’s rising approval, but that it has increased the percentage of Trump supporters who are say they are “extremely motivated to vote” to 72%.
Approval ratings don’t matter if one side has a larger percentage of its voters actually voting.
It does when the side with the increase is already a sizably smaller block than the side with increased energy.
Nothing has changed for MAGA, they will always toe the line. But, as for the past two decades, they will lose the popular vote and their only hope will be to subvert democracy.
Not that I condone anything the US government does or may do, but the guy literally profited off of people using his site for piracy. Not sure what defense he can muster that will succeed in the US court system.
Edit> I guess people don’t understand the words I’ve written. Downvote me, please! Fake internet points are meaningless :)
Edit 2> So many attempts at completely illogical analogies. Wow. And the funny thing is all I said is the US sees what he has done as illegal and therefore will pursue him, and that he would probably have little defense of it since he profited by doing so. It’s impressive how people go from that to inferring that I am on the US’s side with this pursuit. I honestly couldn’t care less what Kim did or what the US does to him…but it sure as hell would be nice if people stopped assuming more than what was actually fucking typed. It’s impressive the sheer lack of comprehension that exists on this Lemmy instance.
People can get injured on my land by actions they take, and I get sued. I’m not saying it makes sense.
But the dude knew full well what he was doing and profited off of piracy. The US has some things to say about that. But apparently no one can read that I said I don’t condone the US here. Maybe the word “condone” confuses people, I don’t know.
Wait is this for real? Liability works like this? I rent a storage unit – does that mean I can send the owners of the storage company to jail if I put drugs in my unit?
It’s more like you had a storage unit, and let people do whatever they want with it, but it’s implied it’s used for illegal activity. And then you have full control to stop or prevent them from doing illegal activities, and choose not to.
If it’s determined there’s liability, maybe. I don’t know about jail but a victims family absolutely could sue in civil court in the US.
I don’t know about specifics but there are absolutely cases and laws around determining when and if a storage company in this case should have known. Also for things like kids breaking into your derelict building and hurting themselves and a million other things.
Don’t ask me to get into whether the laws around establishing liability are correct or ethical, I barley know any details in my own country let alone others (and what international treaties apply). But you asked a question and the answer is: it depends but, yes, sometimes.
not only that. kimble was a skid and paid at&t folks for cards. he was a shit person from day one on. there are too many shit things he did. the idiotic videos of himself in whatever car and women he paid to hang out. also you dont feed off of the Scene. you will have a bad time. kim is shit!
Homelander on ‘The Boys’ Was Always Meant To Be Donald Trump
The comic series was released in 2006 and concluded in 2012, so that’s doubtful. He was supposed to be the synthesis between European White Nationalism and American Exceptionalism, both of which predate Trump by centuries.
Starr straight out rejects the notion that the character is just Trump with powers, and tries to get back to why this character is the product of his conditions rather than just a reflection of an IRL ideological peer.
The through line from this abused and exploited child to an emotionally starved and psychotically included adult is what makes the character fun.
Trump has been an influence on fictional bad guys going back to the 80s. Biff from Back to the Future as an example. Idk about “The Boys” but thought we could have some back and forth with it until someone posted some actual facts.
I’m pretty sure his father was emotionally abusive, according to his sister. So not exactly tortured like Homelander, but it’s still backstory to his villainous behavior
yes. they should be tried for beating the man and looting his car.
whole situation was avoidable. who chases down a gang of hyped up teenagers over littering? one of the kids threw a bottle and now this guy has injuries, severe property damage and a bunch of his possessions stolen. he chose to escalate the situation. don’t escalate. move on with your life. especially if you have all your belongings in your car because you’re moving.
Anyone who looks at a situation where nobody died, and thinks it would have been better if people had been killed, is a violent person and a danger to others.
Look, there are literally two sides here. The situation that actually happened, and the situation you think would have been better.
Nobody died in reality, but your solution involves death, so I guess the real issue here is that you picked a side, and it’s a morally reprehensible one.
He escalated by getting out of his car? I agree that was stupid, he should have kept moving and not stopped for lights or stop signs, but it’s pretty crazy some cities are at the point where getting out of your vehicle is considered “escalating” and leads to your car being destroyed and being viciously beaten by a group of 40 children.
correct. assuming malice from the kids, Mr Uulu got out of the car to confront literal children. this is escalating a trivial incident to a confrontation. over a plastic bottle hitting his car.
I think it is unhinged that we allow people to drive tank sized SUVs and pickups in the first place so I don’t fault the teens for hating cars.
What a colossally dumb take. I’m sure this was totally an anti-car protest gone wrong. 🙄 Putting aside the fact that his car was literally a small sedan, which looks like a Toyota, I would pay good money to watch you go create “solidarity” against cars with this group of kids.
Then there’d be two idiots recovering from a severe beating.
I would concede that my comment was a tangent, but cars are destroying the planet and could potentially cause the extinction of our species, and yet you think hating excessively oversized cars makes me the dumb one? Interesting.
A friend from college got a job as an ER nurse in a not so nice city I grew up by…
She didn’t really explain to anyone who knew the area where she worked, and she didn’t tell co-workers she wasn’t familiar enough with the area. But like, she was an ER nurse, she knew people were getting shot constantly. But she wanted to seem cool and like she could handle herself.
So like a month in of 3rd shift she’s sitting at a red light a few blocks away from the hospital and a sketch all black tinted car flashes their high beams at after pulling up behind.
She doesn’t know what to do, so she just sits there in here car.
Luckily it was a cop who then turned his lights on. He assumed the only reason a car would stop at a red light was because the driver fell asleep drunk, and rather than the cop wanting to stop and get out of his vehicle, he was trying to wake a drunk driver up so they’d leave…
TLDR
He told her to never stop at a red light around there. Slow down, look, and then run the red light.
I’ve heard of that in Detroit. My jujitsu instructor told a story of driving through there somewhere and he stopped at a red light. A police officer pulled him over and explained that he would get robbed if he stopped at lights, and that everyone would know he was clueless and from out of town.
Detroit is exactly what came to mind for me as well. Years ago I was driving back from downtown to Ann Arbor and the interchange I needed was closed so I had to exit in the middle of downtown Detroit. It was pre smartphone days and I was lost at night by myself. I stopped at a red and an unhoused person walked into the middle of the road and threw a coke bottle at my car. Luckily it was plastic.
I was terrified that he was going to come closer and attack my car and me. Luckily that’s all he did. When I got back, everyone asked me why I stopped at the light and I said it was red. They told me never to stop at a red in Detroit. Wild city.
It was my first summer driving in a big city and I was there for an internship so want aware of how bad it was - I was also young and afraid to break any rules. Ah to be young and naive.
I lived in Cleveland for a few years, never heard of/seen anything like that there. Some sketchy neighborhoods, yeah, but so bad police advise you not to stop at red lights? nah.
I mean, Ohio cops are the worst, so even if it was the safe thing to do, they’d pull your ass over for running the light, and then leave as a crowd gathered around your car lol
When your elect a comedian president, sometimes funny things happen— like Russia being invaded for the first time since WWII by the people they were invading themselves!
I so look forward to someone coming in here telling us that we can’t trust those numbers because they come from Hamas, as if Israel hasn’t been bombing the ever-loving fuck out of Gaza.
They’re magic bombs which only kill terrorists. And, if children die, those children are terrorists. And, if hospitals are destroyed, those hospitals were terrorists.
This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is a statistical idea applied individually. I’m discussing statistics applied to the appropriate population. I’m discussing the idea that a population, which holds no interest in the outcome of a decision, should stay the hell out of that decision. Check yourself.
I have no problem with elderly voting. My question is why do they vote?
This is why the right keeps attacking social security; to keep folks who don’t actually have a stake in the future at the voting booths. Then, en masse, they vote against equality and the very future of our planet’s surface all because of outdated ideologies. Because of their self-centeredness, they hold back progress.
WHY do they vote when they won’t be here to see the result? Do they think the generations that will are too stupid to govern themselves?
This has nothing to do with “ageism”, which is an statistical idea applied individually.
While I disagree with that statement, especially in this context, I'm glad to see that you understand the difference between discussing statistics about a demographic population (identified by observation of past events) and inappropriately applying those statistics to an individual.
When you said
The elderly need to SIT DOWN. It’s not their planet anymore, and they need to get over it.
You were insisting on specific future actions ("SIT DOWN" and "get over it"). Actions are taken by individuals. Age is a characteristic that individuals do not have control of. It is not a decision, and we don't cast aspersions on people for things they do not have control of.
Again.. it’s not agesist when you literally call out the entire population for doing the thing that population does.
There it is again.
The entire population - every individual who is a member of the specified population - does not do the thing which is observed to be in the statistical majority for that population (if that's even the case here).
Ok, school time. You are conflating the “entire” population with “every member” of the population. Perhaps you should actually learn about the thing you are trying to correct others about.
Do you also buy the Vance line that people who don’t have kids should not vote because they don’t have skin in the game? At what age are you too old (or need to have kids by) to be concerned about the future? And regardless of “the future” at least some policy’s are about right now. Like the abortion bans or getting rid of Medicare or social security, or raising taxes or regulation of sources of heat or stoves etc… These matter to people till they die ffs.
To clarify here - do you think that people should be forced to leave school boards as soon as their kids graduate? Do they end up eligible again if their kids have grandkids? Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school? Also, does paying school taxes not make you have some skin in the game?
And what about just input on the society you live in? It seems to me the solution in your example would be to have younger people run for / contest the school board.
I want to go on the record on the side of "Yes, people without kids are absolutely capable of caring about education."
But I also wanted to offer a correction:
Is this limited to people with kids going to that specific school?
School boards are for the school district, which is obviously composed of many elementary schools, junior highs, high schools. Without speaking for every school district in the country, I would expect that school board members would need to be residents of the district.
Here try this: Do you think people from Russia should vote in our elections? If you put any thought at all into your argument, you’ll see in advance that you lose this little debate.
If you made an argument, I could perhaps put some thought into it. My argument is simply that Russia isn’t paying our taxes, and is a different country, so there’s no comparison I can think of.
People living in an area paying taxes for that school have every right to be on the school board - it’s a direct application of “no taxation without representation” in which kind of implied in the US is the right to run for the office and be elected to the office. We fought a revolution over taxes and representation. So, not - I put some thought into this and think I just won the debate right there.
Someone sway my feelings… On one hand I’m happy about inclusion but on the other I’m worried non trans women aren’t getting a fair shake.
Edit: or just down vote. I’m genuinely torn and hoping someone can provide some insight
Edit 2: After some snarky comments I decided to go digging… here’s what I found initially. Feel free to post your own studies/links.
*“For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”
Their running times declined as well, but two years on, trans women were still 12 percent faster on the 1.5 mile-run than their cisgender peers.”*
*Testosterone drives anatomical and physiological sex differences in the human body (Figure 1). These sex differences can be architectural and therefore permanent, or can be influenced by adult-level, circulating testosterone concentrations, and therefore modifiable. Permanent sex differences that affect athletic performance involve the (i) brain, (ii) skeletal structure, and (iii) cardiorespiratory system. Modifiable sex differences include testosterone effects on (i) muscle mass and strength and (ii) aerobic capacity.*2022 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
and…
*“Here, we report that current evidence shows the biological advantage, most notably in terms of muscle mass and strength, conferred by male puberty and thus enjoyed by most transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes.”*2022 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/
and…
*“A study of transgender women found their race times slowed after transitioning, but their age grades, which compare people to the best runners of the same sex and age, hardly changed, suggesting they have no advantage over non-transgender women.”*2018 science.org/…/scientist-racing-discover-how-gende…
Hormonal replacement therapy makes trans women lose their advantage regarding muscle growth so the only real ‘advantage’ they have to being trans is being taller on average, but cis women can be tall as well and that was never considered unfair. Also trans women have disadvantages because they often have to deal with surgeries meaning they can’t train for months and they face a lot of discrimination which can impact performance, training possibilities and income (which also affects training possibilities and time). Trans women have never been a threat towards women’s sports, the percentage of trans women with medals is less than that of cis women. Even if you remove the factor of discrimination then the advantage trans women have is no more than a cis woman who is born with very slow muscle acidification. Talking about actual unfair advantages, in many olympic sports you have to have rich parents to be able to get on an olympic level because training facilities are expensive and you (and your parents) need to have a lot of free time.
I get what you mean. I am 100% behind any humans right to be whoever they want to identify as. I am also not naive to the fact that hormones do alter muscle density and development.
I am not an expert, but I do have critical thinking skills.
That being said, I feel like if a trans person wants to participate in sports with cis gender of the same sex, maybe they need to have their hormones monitored to be in line with the average of that gender for a decent period of time so they don’t have hormone based advantages?
If anyone has a better suggestion, please by all means, let me know. That idea is the best one I could personally come up with while defending the trans community from a co-worker that leans very far right and brings up pedos claiming being trans to go to opposite gender bathrooms and trans people having unfair advantage in sports after some body builder claimed to be trans and got world records even tho it was obvious that person was doing it specifically to get the unfair advantage…
I heard a study before which said that trans women on average had lower testosterone than cis women, so the advantages that a trans woman has over them is rather slim, maybe even nonexistant.
I wonder if you are like most people worried that women absolutely must be protected in sports and rarely, if ever, watch women’s sports. Or even the Paralympics at all.
I don’t feel like this is a strong argument, if that’s what it’s meant to be. If not, please disregard the following.
You don’t need to watch the Olympics or the Paralympics to have compassion for your fellow human beings who are competing there. And you can simultaneously feel compassion for the cis women who feel that the playing field is not level if trans women compete with them, and for the trans women who just want to be able to compete.
I’m vehemently pro-trans, and I think that this issue has yet to be settled either way. What you seen to be doing here is an ad hominem attack on someone holding the opposite viewpoint to you (a viewpoint that, again, I hold). This doesn’t help push things forward.
The thing is, the people I am not hearing make these complaints are the avid watchers of women’s sports. Just mostly a lot of white knights who think that precious flowers need special protection they haven’t asked for.
This especially came to a head with Imane Khelif, who is a cis woman, where people were suggesting that women in a sport where you try to punch each other into unconsciousness need to be protected. It’s ludicrous.
I’m not sure anyone here is saying “women need protection!”. I was asking about the fairness of sport and if a trans athlete has an inherent biological advantage over another athlete.
I haven’t seen anyone say that they are dominating but trans people only make up 1% of the population so the pool of potential athletes is quite a bit smaller than cis gendered individuals.
Having religion in politics has ruined both. It makes politicians uncompromising since they believe they have God on their side and thus people they disagree with as the devil. This forces those within a church to decide on their values and their church. This drives people out of the church until only the craziest remain. This was inevitable and they both deserve it
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
The article is missing critical info about frequency and severity.
While the premise (and headline) seems outrageous,
Juveniles tried as adults should be rare
Should only apply to the worst cases
If my expectations are met, is it really so bad that a small number of the worst offenders got excessive sentences? Is it really fair to compare sentences of a small number of the worst offenders to sentences of the general population?
However I didn’t read anywhere in the article whether these were truly a small number or that they were the worst offenders.
I think this section answers a lot of your questions
Only one in 10 of the more than 20,000 children tried as adults in Florida were given juvenile sanctions and less than 5% received a “youthful offender” designation, the Herald found in an analysis of the last 15 years of state court system sentencing data from 2008 to 2022.
Children tried as adults were sentenced to a little more than three years in prison on average for third-degree felonies — around 50% longer than the average sentence given to adults for the same class of offense. The vast majority of all felony charges are third-degree offenses, which are the lowest class of felony crimes and include burglary, some types of assault, drug possession and certain DUI offenses.
Children and adults had similar average sentences for more serious offenses that fall under first and second-degree felonies. Overall, a child tried as an adult was sentenced to a little more than five years for a felony charge while an adult received around three-and-a-half years. These trends held even after the Herald adjusted for the most extreme sentences that could skew the figures.
is it really so bad that a small number of the worst offenders
They’re not necessarily “the worst,” prosecutors can try any juvenile as an adult that they want to in Florida
Is it really fair to compare sentences of a small number of the worst offenders to sentences of the general population?
They’re comparing juveniles and adults charged with the same class of crimes, and actually the disparity is more pronounced with the lowest level third degree felonies than with the first and second degree ones.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.