I’ll toss in that I’m fine with the luxurious versions of those things being for profit where it applies. But that’s the rub, the ruling class is probably going to define anything past a cardboard box and gruel as “luxury.”
You know, if these schools are going to refuse to pay teachers enough to live on, maybe they shouldn’t be so uptight about where those teachers get their supplemental income from. 😒
The problem is that he’s rich enough to have bought an entire social network to express himself and has the ability to influence a lot of very important situations.
I’m hoping we go full German on their asses so they have to run for their lives for the rest of their miserable lives if they want to escape being jailed for what they tried to do.
I find it depressing that not wanting migrants to drown, is framed as 'support for migrants' and somehow left wing.
If a suspected rapist was drowning in a pond, I'd expect the police to save them, then jail them. Leaving people to die without any right to a trial or to be heard, is simply sociopathic.
It's perfectly possible to have a hardline anti-migration policy, which doesn't involve allowing thousands of people to drown.
3 billionaires and young adult vs 300 migrants. The world was mad at us for not caring about 4 billionaires, not themselves for not caring about 300 migrants.
In concept, sure, it’s possible. In practice, as we see here, the sorts of people who have hardline anti-immigration opinions tend to do so because they see those migrants as being less than fully human.
How often does the …senate? vote on a federal funding bill, and why does the last one expire? Why isn’t there some default level of funding for federal spending?
The house is the bigger shit show and typically writes the budget bills since the Senate will usually pass it if the house does. (Not 100% accurate , see edit) The Senate did pass their own bipartisan stopgap funding for 6 weeks, but McCarthy refused to even discuss it because it contained funding for Ukraine.
This is yet another one of those things that has no real safeguards because Congress has always passed budgets without much issue for the majority of history. There’s always negotiating, but shutting down the government has always been off the table until fairly recently.
There is a bipartisan bill being proposed to end shutdowns and just fund the government at current levels until a budget is passed. But most members of Congress don’t support it because it means they can’t use the shutdown as leverage, on either side.
Badly written headline. There is a man targetted the MeToo movement who was defended by the Trump administration. Now that man has been accused of dismembering his girlfriend.
It’s just a somewhat poorly-written headline. It’s about a guy - not Trump - who was supposedly victimized by the Me Too movement. And all-too-predictably, it turns out the guy - not Trump - is probably a psychotic murderer. Because that’s the sort of guy Trump likes.
I hate this two sentence headline format (“John Doe did blankety-blank. Now he’s yadda yadda whatever”) almost as much as I hate seeing headlines with the words, “slam,” “rip,” and “sparks outrage.”
Yeah, those are the worst. I’m like, “Look, I’m a news-interested person, and I want to know about this guy. Just give me a headline that interests me without it seeming like you’re trying to trick me.”
I posted an archive link in another comment here. But no it’s not Trump being accused of murder. It’s some other guy, Joseph Carl Roberts, that “was once touted by the Trump administration as a poster child for the purported excesses of the #MeToo movement and the reckoning over sexual assault at American colleges.” Now he killed someone and has been charged for it.
For all the people saying this is simply a badly written title.
Do you actually believe that?
Why is it that all these "badly written" titles, also happen to be designed to instill an outrage reaction?
It's not a coincidence or accident. All these "badly written" titles these days are done so deliberately. Just like YouTube is full of O-face thumbnails and bullshit titles, so is "the news".
For all the people saying this is simply a badly written title.
Do you actually believe that
Of course it’s badly written. What are you trying to imply?
He isn’t even named, it just says “him”. How are we supposed to know who “him” is? The only named person is Trump, so how can we be expected to think “him” means anyone else?
Just replace “him” with “this man”, and it’s still clickbait but clearer. Or hell, just put his name there. The circumstance itself is interesting enough for an article without resorting to tricks.
BYU is always on the racist/sexist side of things, along with a large chunk of the population there. Check out Utah’s demographics from census.gov:
White alone, percent - 90.0%
Black or African American alone, percent - 1.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent - 1.5%
Asian alone, percent - 2.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent - 1.2%
Two or More Races, percent - 2.9%
Hispanic or Latino, percent - 15.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent - 76.7%
For BYU, while the share of White students is overall lower compared to the state, there is an even smaller share of Black students, with the Dept. of Education reporting 0% Black students (this doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but it shows how few Black students there are):
White alone, percent - 81.0%
Black or African American alone, percent - 0.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent - 0.0%
Asian alone, percent - 2.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent - 1.0%
Two or More Races, percent - 4.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent - 7.0%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent - 81.0%
Growing up in Utah, it’s like you’re in a bubble. Barely any diversity, the Church controls the government, and behind-the-back racism and discrimination is the norm. It’s a state I’m very glad I was able to escape.
Yeah with any situation in Utah or with Mormons can always be counted on to be really racist. It might have something to do with how incredibly racist Brigham Young was even in the context of his time.
Sorry, to be callous, but good riddance. You should hear what Jello Biafra has to say about the time Feinstein was Mayor of San Francisco:
Jello Biafra: Quentin Kopp was actually very jovial, friendly, kind of a character. He and Feinstein had been on the Board Of Supervisors, but when George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated Feinstein was appointed as Acting Mayor. She ran the city with an iron fist, and the police were completely out of control, which she seemed to get off on. I have never been very fond of her, and any grief I can cause that creature, I’m happy to oblige. But that wasn’t why I ran for Mayor. It was more like: wouldn’t this be a great prank?
Jello Biafra: I had some pretty interesting proposals. Making businessmen wear clown suits was the one the media seized on, but there was a lot more to it than they realised. It was my response to Frankenfeinstein [Feinstein] saying she was going to “clean up” Market Street, by which she meant throwing the homeless out of all the vacant buildings.
Thank you. I’m going to have to dig up a copy. I haven’t heard any of his spoken word albums in literally decades. Still listen to DK all the time though.
Governments across the world need to effectively age down. It's ridiculous that those old clowns who aren't even affected by the consequences of their actions can just continue to do this shit. Yeah, they get voted in, but that's because of the aging populations of so many countries being such a majority while most of those who are going to be affected don't even have a legal say in the matter, since they can't vote themselves. Millennials got already fucked over repeatedly through politics in the past decades and now Gen Z has to face the same bullshit. People will just further radicalize if they don't address this.
Why is it whenever a govt shutdown almost anything bad in government occurs it’s because of Republicans?
I didn’t used to think like this and I didn’t used to be so one sided in my political thinking, but events from 2016 on have turned me into a 100% Democrat voter. I always was for presidential elections but I used to consider more nuance in local elections and actually read the positions before voting. Now I don’t even bother. Democrats are not without sin but I’m always going to vote for the party that at least pays lip service to social improvement instead of greed being the core value of the party.
Ranked choice voting and more than 2 parties would be the best situation but until we get that I’m straight down the ballot with the lesser of two evils.
I’m the exact same way. The first election I voted in was Bush v Gore. Then and for nearly two decades later, I would look closely at each candidate no matter the party, and vote for the best candidate. I tended to vote for the Democrat more often, but was never a straight down ballot voter, especially for state and local elections.
At this point though, the ® next to someone’s name on the ballot is so toxic that I won’t even consider them. They’ve all drunken the MAGA Koolaid and are doing everything they can to destroy our government and rip up the Constitution in the name of Trump. Maaaaaaaaaybe if I saw someone with balls to standup and say “hey, I’m a Republican but all this Trump worship has gone too far” then I would consider them. But that’s not the case here. Everyone running on the Republican ticket in my area has Trump’s balls in and around their mouth, so I will vote straight (D) for the next several years.
Republicans are always the cause of it and yet they all shout afterwards that it’s the democrat’s fault. At this point, I’d be surprised if any republican politician ever told the truth once.
There's a quote from P.J. O'Rourke that illustrates the point well:
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
A central tenant of the Democratic Party is that government can be a force for good and should be run well. Republicans try to tear the government down, especially at the federal level. The party as a whole doesn't care nearly as much about good governance principles, though there are of course exceptions.
It’s because of the Two Santa’s Problem. Republicans figured out in the 1970’s they couldn’t get elected competing with Democrats who want to expand social programs. They then adopted the strategy of saying the government doesn’t work, defunding it so that the self fulfilling prophecy comes true and they can be a Santa by giving tax cuts for the programs they defund.
defunding it so that the self fulfilling prophecy comes true and they can be a Santa by giving tax cuts for the programs they defund.
This is giving them slightly too much credit. They don’t even shrink the government and pass the savings back to the American people. They continually grow the government, just like Democrats, however they have no mechanism to fund it because they also always support tax cuts. That’s why the deficit and the debt tend to grow even larger under their governance. That’s the two santas: government freebies and tax cuts both. Billions for defense contractors while we’re also giving Mr Private Jet a tax write-off.
Because Republicans campaign on the principal of “government is inept” and do everything they can to make it so. They’re literally trying to destroy it from within to make their claim true.
Their motivation for destroying the government is their corporate funders. A weak government means corporations have more freedom to truly fuck over their customers and workers.
Money is their God and country.
Edit - I forgot to include their extremist faction’s motivation since Trump took the wheel. Foreign funders. Russia and China have Trump, and therefore the MAGA faction, in their pocket.
That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.
Except the next paragraph says:
If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony;
But, if the shooting was in self-defense, was it unlawful? Maybe the guy was legally allowed to defend himself, but not legally allowed to shoot a gun inside a crowded food court. Like, the self-defense covers him for injuring another person, but it doesn’t cover the danger he posed to other people when he did it?
I noted this as well. No info about the second conviction.
Another poster said there was an appeal, I can’t find anything about it, by whom, or on what.
Also see no info about post verdict motions.
It sounded to me as though there may be inconsistent verdicts. I don’t know this aspect of criminal procedure to say what happens in this case. I think it’s a mistrial, and dude may be retried? Could be a directed verdict on the convicted charge.
B) all the news sites that popped up at the top of Google search are literally identical. Cool.
I was just skimming through them, so it took me about five articles to realize that they weren’t just sharing quotes but were actually exact copies. I felt like I was crazy for a minute. I have never seen this kind of thing with news articles, but makes me wonder how common it is.
Also, I was using DDG not Google so it is not just their problem.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.