“She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he said, later adding: “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”
You sexually assaulted her in 1996 you dumb sack of shit. It was two full decades before you fell ass backwards into the Oval office. This has nothing to do with the presidency. It’s about you and your crimes.
Edit: The defamation claim is absolutely about the sexual assault taking place. That’s what he was referring to when he said “something I consider to be a false accusation”. Anyone trying to tell you this trial has nothing to do with the sexual assault is an idiot.
This trial isn’t about the sexual assault. That was already established in a previous case, where he was ordered to pay $5M in damages.
This trial is about him repeatedly calling her a liar, and other worse things when the memoir she had published in 2019 described the sexual assault. He’s unsuccessfully attempting to argue that since he was president at the time, his actions as president should be immune from civil and criminal litigation.
I think that even if he and his attorneys weren’t some of the dumbest people in the world, it would still be a very difficult position to prove. As it turns out, though, they are some of the dumbest people in the world, so there’s no shot that that defense will work. And he doesn’t exactly help his case by repeatedly claiming that Carroll was lying about the sexual assault, since that has already been established as fact by the court.
Edit: Very confused about the downvotes here. What am I missing?
What am I missing? I figure it’s because people don’t know the intricacies of the two trials. He’s already been found liable for the sexual assault in the first completed case. This current case has the same basic facts so the judge ruled that there is no re-litigation to be done on liability, only on damages.
I presume your downvotes are most likely related to the first sentence in your post. They get that far and likely assume that you’re denying the first case’s conclusions without catching the subtle nature of the two cases.
LOL. Teslas cars are, for the most part, not “expensive luxury vehicles”. The brand as a whole is on par with Ford in terms of pricing. The air of luxury is yet another fallacy we cooked up in our heads with no evidence to support it; just like “Elon is a genius”.
Look, Elon single handedly builds rockets to Mars. He built your Tesla and it’s basically a spaceship with wheels. What could possibly be more luxurious?
I mean, there’s probably very limited value in having a streaming service for the front display in a car anyway. The only time you’d use it is when you’ve got half an hour to kill while you’re charging on the go.
That’s motivated thinking, not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the uneasy feeling when trying to balance opposing thoughts. If someone’s blindly following BS, what they are distinctly lacking, is cognitive dissonance.
The lawsuit you’re referring to is about a poor old woman who got second degree burns, took McD to court and won, all while being slandered by the media for being some litigation happy grifter. Just saying.
I am aware, yes. The injuries she got were pretty bad. The attorneys also successfully argued that McDonald’s coffee was substantially hotter than any other coffee and that the degrees of difference caused the need for skin grafts. Colder coffee would simply not have caused that severity of injury.
But, as we all know: that doesn’t make for good headlines. So ‘woman sues over hot coffee’ is what stuck.
And the whole “she spilled some mildly hot coffee and got dollar signs in her eyes” narrative was cooked up by McDonald’s. They couldn’t win in court, so they tried to shape the public narrative to portray the poor woman as seeking a payday.
In reality, she only initially wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical bills. They could have made the entire thing go away for $20,000. Instead, McDonald’s opted to spend likely millions not only on lawyers, but on a public relations campaign to defame this poor woman.
You’re completely right. People just want to keep their blinders on and hate on this because it’s Texas. They don’t want to think critically and acknowledge a state that often does the wrong thing can also do the right thing.
I guarantee there wouldn’t be as many critical comments if this were New York or California.
In your metaphor b is closer to c than a so it’s a good thing. But if b is on a one way street to a cliff it doesn’t make it a good thing to drive there.
Person has a bad day after losing their job or some other real life event like losing their mother. Accidentally runs a red light and kills someone. Officer says they were drunk. Breathilizer says 0.0 and person says they were sober. Poof. They go to prison, and you are now asking someone to go to their house, sieze all their assets and throw their children and spouse out into homelessness because of an accident that involved one of the MANY incidents that occur where people get charged with DUI/DWI without being intoxicated.
Go live in your manufactured world that cops are dealing out fair and unbias judgement against citizens. If you need me to show you where it says they are allowed to give you a dui without you failing a breathilizer/ blood test I can
I agree, pleading up to guilty is dumb. But I do have to question the wisdom of this law anyway: Do you not normally go to prison for manslaughter in Texas? According to www.findlaw.com/…/texas-manslaughter-laws.html you can end up in prison for up to 20 years (though it can be as little as two, but I’d assume it’s not two in the case of drunk driving.) Intoxication manslaughter is also usually accompanied by a fine of up to $10,000.
Even two years imprisonment for a felony will result in the felon (1) selling up all their possessions to pay for lawyers, etc, and (2) losing their jobs and being unable to get jobs for years afterwards. Something that’ll be made worse if they’re on the hook for child support they’re unable to pay for and therefore will, I assume, be unable to get a driver’s license, in a state where driving is mandatory.
So, other than theater, what is this for? Making child support “someone else’s problem” so the state can avoid helping people in dire financial circumstances by pointing at someone else and saying “Well they should be paying for it.”?
I appreciate a lot of people are posting here agreeing with the bill because it sounds like something they should support. But it’s either not thought out, or the intentions behind it are rotten. Given it’s Texas, the latter seems probable.
Touché. Maybe to bring it back into the realms of ‘worth keeping’, it could be means-tested (so of you have assets then this stands and you gotta liquefy that wealth, but if you’re essentially unable to pay its recognized as a barrier to rehabilitation?)
It’s theater. People go to prison for intoxication manslaughter. How are they making money to pay for child support? What kind of job will they really get after getting out of prison for essentially murder?
A cynical person might even say this is an attempt by the state and insurance companies to justify not having any sort of security net for victims’ families. If one person can be held financially responsible for the kids, why should anyone else have to step in?
That is exactly what it is, aimed at drunk drivers first because everyone will be on board with that demographic first. Then it will be expanded over time.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. – H.L. Mencken
So, if they have a family and kids, I guess they’re on the street now? The parent involved is likely going to prison, so they’re not going to be able to provide support. This is “tough on crime” theater that would likely do nothing but cause more harm.
If someone is unable to pay the restitution because they’re incarcerated, they’re expected to make payments no “later than the first anniversary of the date,” of their release, the law says.
From the article. So seems like they thought of that too
So how long do you get for manslaughter in the us? 8 years? So at best the child gets support like 9 years later and only if the person manages to get a good enough job… Maybe the life of a child shouldn’t be a lottery but just backed by the state
They did something that wasn’t evil, just stupid. I guess that is a win for texas. There are already systems to make people pay damages to other people without having the child go trough the indignity of getting child support from a murderer.
Indignity of receiving child support? Are you kidding?
We’re talking about a child/children’s parent being killed, and you think it’s somehow unjust that they’re receiving the smallest amount of financial restitution from the person who killed them. I’d love to hear you explain how this is somehow stupid or insulting to a single parent and the surviving children.
All the words in my comment are important and you seem to have cut out a large part of them like some kind of weird ransome note.
I said that damages, that means the same as financial restitution, should be and is payed out in these kinds of cases. There is already a legal framework for that and it doesn’t involve child support like the drunk driver is the kids new dad. It is a gross way of looking at it and if it is truly child support like child support is handled then they have suddenly introduced a criminal aspect to a system that doesn’t normally interface with the justice system.
I am not going to oppose anything that gets more support to single parents and children who lose a parent.
Being opposed to this because of what it’s called is a ridiculously short sighted view to take. I don’t care what this is called, but it is not gross, and it is not stupid.
Seems like they have come along way since the grousing about the laws in the 80s coming into effect to ban a hard working person from enjoying a couple on the way home from work…
Mix this in with the freeway speed limits are 80MPH on the highway in. Texas and often 65 for work zones on the smaller 2 lane highways. One can’t even go that fast on the I5 in Oregon with the Max being only 60 mph without construction delays. Can’t imagine adding a couple of drinks into the mix on the way home from a 12 hour day…
We’re stuck with him till 2034 at least, he had this to say following his confirmation:
“The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years,” a former clerk renmembered Thomas who was 43 years old when confirmed saying, according to The New York Times. “And I’m going to make their lives miserable for 43 years.”
He hates it because he’s literally one of the people whom affirmative action helped put him in a position he is totally unqualified for (Supreme Court Justice).
His evidence that it is bad and doesn’t work is… himself.
What was that thing about conservatives and projection… Oh yeah: “It’s always projection.”
Maybe initially only conservatives thought that, but as a not-conservative I’ve got to admit that the way he’s been acting is making a more and more compelling case for it.
I dunno. Oliver has guaranteed him a cool $1mil per year, until either Thomas or John dies (out of his own pocket no less!!), AND thrown in a brand new, top of the line Prevost Marathon motor coach.
Which he will turn down. If you watch the episode you’ll see all the perks he enjoys from being who he is. Which of course he’d stop being invited to, if he retired from the position.
True (and I watched the episode), but it doesn’t take away from the fact it is a sweet deal. I bet you Thomas considers it, even if he chooses not to take it.
It was scary seeing the stark difference between when he was begging his legislative colleagues that they need to raise their pay and his more recent interviews about how they are paid.
It’s clear as day that even though he isn’t getting paid more, he’s getting paid plenty.
The funny thing was that I almost couldn’t get a security clearance because I had so much debt in my early career days. The fact that there is zero oversight over the Supreme Court is just baffling.
Don’t even need to sell yourself to foreign actors. There’s plenty of cash floating around the Microsofts, Eli Lillys, Berkshire Hathaways, Proctor & Gambles, et al.
You can take all the “lobbying” you want and remain a Faithful Patriotic American^tm^
That was my point. Turning it down either means he just loves judging so much that he’s willing to do it until he dies or he has a financial incentive worth more than a million dollars a year.
Even if he decided it was a good deal, if he cares about the legacy of his past decisions at least seeming legitimate, he has to turn it down. We all know he’s for sale, but he loses deniability if he straight up sells out.
Third option: he turns it down because he likes STIGGINIT too much.
What’s funny is, NPR did an interview with a guy who wrote a book on Thomas, and one of the things he points out is how much Thomas hates affirmative action because of a deep-seated insecurity about his own accomplishments.
Which becomes the ultimate irony: the only reason Thomas is on SCOTUS is because Republicans wanted a black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, but without all the pesky “morals” and “ethics.” In other words, he obtained the pinnacle of his career… Because of his skin color.
He sold about 500,000 shares. He owned, apparently, 3.3% of the 17.06 million total shares of the company, meaning he had a little over 562,000 shares. He sold almost all of his shares. That doesn’t exactly exude confidence in future growth, IMO.
The site’s audience grew rapidly in its first few months, and by August 2005, Huffman noticed their habitual user-base had grown so large that he no longer needed to fill the front page with content himself.[11][14][15] Huffman and Ohanian sold Reddit to Condé Nast on October 31, 2006, for a reported $10 million to $20 million.[3][16] Huffman remained with Reddit until 2009, when he left his role as acting CEO.[17]
Huffman spent several months backpacking in Costa Rica[18] before co-creating the travel website Hipmunk with Adam Goldstein, an author and software developer, in 2010. Funded by Y Combinator,[19][20] Hipmunk launched in August 2010[21] with Huffman serving as CTO.[22] In 2011, Inc. named Huffman to its 30 under 30 list.[22]
In 2014, Huffman said that his decision to sell Reddit had been a mistake, and that the site’s growth had exceeded his expectations.[23] On July 10, 2015, Reddit hired Huffman as CEO following the resignation of Ellen Pao[24] and during a particularly difficult time for the company.[25] Upon rejoining the company, Huffman’s top goals included launching Reddit’s iOS and Android apps, fixing Reddit’s mobile website, and creating A/B testing infrastructure.[3]
Since returning to Reddit, Huffman instituted a number of technological changes including an updated mobile site and stronger infrastructure, as well as new content guidelines.
I don’t think that he’s had a whole lot of faith in Reddit as a business since early-on.
My favorite way to visualize the meaning of “asshat”: the person is such a sad waste of human life that their entire upper body is effectively just a hat for their posterior.
They acquired Alien Blue, but what they put out under “Reddit” was not Alien Blue in the least bit. They basically bought it to kill it. I had Alien Blue. :(
Well, you wouldn’t expect it to in the growth phase.
A lot of consumer-facing Internet companies have a large portion of their costs be fixed costs. That is, a programmer or QA guy costs the same amount whether you have ten users or ten million users. But your revenue is linear in your userbase size. So you really don’t want to be a small company, if you fit that profile.
The idea is to burn money and grow rapidly to the point where your fixed costs are relatively small. It makes no sense to try to generate profit if you lose growth for it.
That’s especially true for social media companies, because for them, network effect is a major factor – the value of the network is something like the square of the number of users.
So you really want to be big, not small.
So the solution is to grow quickly, lose money during that period, then adjust and monetize the userbase when you can’t afford to burn money growing any more.
That transition to a profitable state after a money-losing growth state usually means that a company is gonna do something unpopular (since they’re optimizing for something other than appeal) and what Corey Doctorow was complaining about as “enshittification”.
The fact that Reddit lost money during the growth phase doesn’t mean that it was a failure – that would have been intended, part of the business model.
Now, if it’s losing money once the growth phase is done, that could be another story.
It doesn’t, he had like 4.6 million shares before the ipo. The 500,000 number sold is just his class A shares. He’ll still have 4.1 million shares of class b stock after this it looks like. The class b stock has ten votes compared to one vote for class a stock for any shareholder votes I believe. So selling only his class a shares won’t change the percent voting control of the company he has by much. The person you’re replying to is confused about how many total shares he has. I don’t think the class b shares are being openly traded though, I think the ipo is just offering class a shares, which is what’s causing the confusion here. He sold almost all of his class a shares, but still has plenty of class b.
Yeah, I mean ipo’s in general are definitely a rich get richer kind of thing that screw over retail traders, but I don’t think there’s anything particularly unusual about this one.
According to the second link, he sold nearly all of his class A shares, but none of his class B shares. His total share of the company went from 3.2% to 2.6%, which, is still not insignificant.
19% is still a lot higher than the “only 40mil out of a 16 bil stock” that I’ve seen mentioned and upvoted elsewhere in the thread. But yeah, not that big of a deal, I imagine. I was expecting him to sell over 30%
That’s so strange. So you’re saying the entire capitalist system, that funnels value and wealth ever upward, where consolidation has been rampant, oligopolies are the order of the day and some of our “most successful” companies face charges of but then nothing is done about their monopolies, where at these same titans of industry, an even narrower funnel shovels obscene wealth to those with access to the company’s equity grants and options, while those who actually provide the work in the company get 2.3% wage increases because wage stagnation must increase until beatings improve, where these same few companies set and increase prices to enrich their own quarterly stock grants while their employees can’t get an increase that even matches inflation let alone provides value…
You’re saying that this system somehow allows for wealth concentration? /s
I was thinking about it today as I went by a Les Schwab where behind the front desk they proudly offer payment plans for those with good credit in an enormous banner. Why can’t Americans afford to buy car tires? Why would they need to exist in a system where interest would need to be paid to be able to fix their common mode of transportation? Why are tire companies opening finance arms to loan usuriously? Why does a mobile telephone take 2 months of salary to afford? Ask GE finance I suppose and Jack Welch.
People act like inflation is the invisible hand of the market, this is capitalism, companies will charge whatever they want to maximize profits, and that rarely results in a lower price.
Like, if you made thingamajigs, and if you made as many as you could (10 million) and sold as much as you could to saturate the market and end up making 10 million, that’s less profit than if you charged $5 a piece and only sold 2 million. Same income, much lower overhead.
So you cut staffing and make 1/5th of what you can because that maximizes profit.
Which is fine until your thingamajig is something that people need like food, water, or shelter. If you’re putting profit over production, then people who can’t afford it have to go without.
It’s literally what’s going on with insulin. This is t a hypothetical, this is what’s been happening for a long time.
It’s just with the same few giant corporations making everything, if just one does, the other 2-4 giant corporations crunch the same numbers and come up with the same plan.
Something that used to be called price fixing is suddenly just “internal analytics”
wait, all we have to do is make more than what the optimal profit supply/demand curve dictates, and we can get rid of homelessness? maybe do the same with food so no one has to starve?
Windfall taxes are reactive and bad policy in general.
What we need is a return to pre-Reagan tax policy. Higher upper tax brackets, corporate taxes, and the closing of loopholes that allow the rich to hide their wealth offshore.
What word do you prefer to use to describe people who hoard more wealth than they or their children can spend in a lifetime while the vast majority of workers are on the edge of financial ruin? Why can’t they be satisfied with just having one mega yacht? One giant mansion? If not “greed” what do you call it?
Are you being sarcastic? I’ve seen a lot of sarcasm in my days, and this looks a lot like that. Nah, who’d be sarcastic on the internet without a “/s“? Everyone would just assume you’re not being sarcastic, and then the whole conversation would devolve.
Anyways, I’m not sure how neo-feudalism is charming. Could you expand on that a bit?
there is no such thing as a morally agnostic system, you either agree with or disagree with the outcome of the economic system, it is moral or immoral.
True, a system whose only imperative is personal upside maximization with no consideration for anybody else is morally agnostic if you put aside the moral dimensions of having no consideration for anybody else whilst acting for personal upside maximization.
Same as murder being morally agnostic if you put aside the moral dimensions of killing another human being.
Consider the possibility that you’re confusing familiarity, common use in your environment and even normalization of something with it actually being devoid of a moral component: just because people around you got used to act in some way without questioning such way of acting doesn’t mean it’s morally agnostic: after all, slavery too used to be normal.
The system isn’t morally agnostic dumbass, it literally is greed. It was created for the purpose of greed and it continues funnel all the wealth to the greedy. Loopholes are found around all the rate limiters and speed governors that get designed into the law and federal agencies. They’re trying “company store” tactics again. Fucking child labor is back.
“The system is morally agnostic” imagine the fucking Stockholm Syndrome (yes I’ve heard it’s not actually real stfu)
So many people seem to have mistaken what you said for a defense of capitalism.
I think a better way to say it is that greed isn’t a useful way to explain any particular thing that happens in a capitalist system, because everything that happens in capitalism is driven by greed. Saying one particular problem is caused by greed is like a doctor saying someone’s illness is a symptom of being alive; it’s true, but it explains nothing.
I could have bought a decent house alone, albeit uncomfortably. But I was happy enough in my condo. Now I have a wife and dual income, and we’d have to really stretch for a shitty house on the outskirts. And neither of our wages have changed much.
And just in case there is any confusion, here’s the next line:
By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
If he saw what modern minimum wage has become, he would be disgusted.
If they’re paying dividends to shareholders, and fatcat salaries to CEO / upper board, whilst their workers need gov topups and assistance to survive… they can get fucked.
It never fails to amaze me that there’s so much focus on ‘benefit scroungers’, whilst a majority of big businesses gain the giant benefit of cheap wages while their workers need gov assistance to get by. There are piggies with their snouts at the top, and they sit on the boards / are CEOs of big companies & multinationals.
It's the usual backwards conservative shit, much like their stance on illegal immigration. They demonize immigrants from Central America while largely conservative businesses are the ones who hire them and give them a reason to come here. So, as DeSantis found out, they don't actually want laws to stop it. Same with welfare, like you're saying... they act like people on public assistance are scum somehow, and like they want to decrease it, but then companies like Walmart are setup to benefit from it by being able to pay their workers less.
and they deserve it. They sacrificed and helped the big 3 stay in business 15 years ago and that kindness was never repaid. I live in Detroit and the anger felt by the workers over this fact is not going anywhere. Time for compensation.
Also for reference, about a decade ago during the last contract negotiation, workers forgoed pay raises in order to help these struggling companies bottom line with the promise that they’d get their raises in the future all while inflation hammered away at their stagnant pay. These workers are owed that money.
Do certain medications which are are strong as some and worse than many illegal disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Wasn't there pretty wide claims about Trump popping pills which would disqualify him from owning a firearm anyway?
In this case the crime would be purchasing a handgun in a state in which you are not a resident.
Handguns can only be purchased in your home state. It’s why California’s handgun roster is such a big deal. They simply refuse to allow new models of handguns to be sold there regardless of whether or not their features are illegal, and buying them out of state is prohibited.
With long guns, the gun’s features must be legal in both the state where the sale is taking place and the state in which the buyer lives. With pistols it’s simply illegal to transfer the firearm to someone from out of state.
If I was from Arizona and wanted to give a single-shot 22 plinking pistol to my Dad in Texas, I’d have to sell it to a local firearms dealer, have them transfer it to a Texas dealer, and have my Dad buy it there.
Ya, I live in a more restricted state and have purchased a handgun from out of state. It goes to a firearm dealer and they transfer it to you after doing whatever background checks your state requires. The gun isn’t sold to the dealer, they just hold it while everything clears. I don’t know anything about interstate private sales though.
One fun fact though is that you can buy an M1 Garand from the government and they’ll ship it to your door. So that’s pretty neat.
I am currently in Colorado, and person to person firearm transfers are prohibited, unless you have the appropriate license. I bought my Taurus .40 from a friend in South Carolina when I lived in North Carolina. It was perfectly legal without needing an FFL transfer.
Laws get weird in different states like the person above said, but in Colorado you can buy a rifle if you are from out of state but you must be a resident for a pistol.
I haven’t read up on any recent law changes about that though. Colorado just implemented a mandatory three day wait after a background check, so there is that.
It’s a question on a federal background check. For people who live in states where scheduled drugs are legal for recreation, it’s a grey area. The state wouldn’t care, but the feds do.
It’s basically boils down to “gotcha” requirements. If you get investigated for federal crimes and also own firearms but live in a state where some scheduled drugs are legal that you use, the fed can still just flag any future checks and charge you with lying on any previous background checks.
I am not a fan of that kind of legal fuckery, especially if a person happens to be charged with a crime they didn’t commit and still get investigated.
Hunter is most likely going to walk for good reason. What he was charged with are unconditional laws. If he walks, so will Trump. And that’s assuming you can pin Trump with unlawful use first.
DOJ knows they are getting crushed with Hunter. Even 2A orgs offered legal help to him. They know the laws can’t be upheld by an honest judge. So why hit Trump with the same charges that they’re losing their shit over with Hunter?
Thats a great read, and echoes what ive been seeing at my own workplace. Those who even remotely follow news (outside of Faux News) are all voting biden. Those who dont, hear that bidens old, that hes out of touch, and want trump to win out of spite for how much they hate the political climate.
That whole, “vote for trump or abstain to stick it to the man” thing is trending like nothing else. Even here on Lemmy, but esp on reddit.
And im banned from the sub for this. Fucking terrifying shit if ur at all into democracy or oopsed to fascism.
Please spread word of this happening. On reddit this shit is far far more widespread. There, leftist subs that once prided themselves on never banning anyone will happily ban anyone who says that not voting for biden is playing right into fascist hands, even if said comment generates positive feedback!
people used to look at children as a way to pass on knowledge, culture, adn ofc, genes
nowadays our genes dont matter so much unless youre a super athlete or mega genius, so passing them on seems frivolous to many. then theres the interent, which houses knowledge on damn near everything. so i guess it makes sense why the desire to carry on would be outweighed at this point
At best, Masterson would have to “pay rent” if he were in a regular prison, but honestly he’ll likely go to a rich white person prison where none of that applies. A prisoner would only get killed if he were a child molester.
I assume they’re talking about white collar prisons which a sex offender would not be going to AFAIK. If they’re just talking about some secret rich white people prison where violent offenders go when they have money, there isn’t one. Rich people get off if their richness helps enough.
The big difference between this place and Reddit is I would have been called an idiot for not believing it at face value, and here someone just drops a link
I’m browsing on Voyager, which looks a lot like Apollo, discussions branch out down to the right. On reddit the further down and right you went in any given thread it was always mudslinging and downvotes, here it seems to be a lot more people actually talking to each other
And then shock and surprise that people are actually talking to each other instead of just either mindlessly agreeing or purging a different opinion. Don’t folks know this is the internet, which is no place for actual discourse?
It’s not how you think. For starters not many inmates will risk adding several more years to their sentence for assaulting a sex offender. Most people in prison want to go home. He’ll be fine as long as he keeps to himself or stays with other sex offenders. Also, before someone starts their fantasies, prison rape is not common. Prison Rape Elimination Act ended most of that. The type of sex offenders who do get assaulted in prison generally ask for it. Their specific offense plays a factor but its usually because they’re annoying as hell, keep pushing boundaries with other inmates, actually it’s mostly because they push boundaries.
Depends on where you end up, too. There are a bare handful of prisons full of and geared towards rehabbing sex offenders, though none of those are where he's going. And low security in general, sure, they're apt to mostly ostracize them rather than risk extending their own sentence. High security, you're gonna want to go into protective custody as quickly as possible or gamble on whether or not your skull is ventilated.
Protective custody was where Masterson was being held back in June anyway while awaiting a verdict. I see no real reason he'd be moved out of it, so I'm sure he'll mostly be bored.
This REALLY varies. The majority of prisons do not tack on time for in prison fights. Unless they near kill or maim him, they’re fine whooping his ass and taking a week in the hole as that’s all they’ll get.
I will have to disagree. When you are in prison you are in the custody of the state (state or federal). If the state just knowingly allows you to be at risk by placing you in a dangerous situation then they become liable. It would then become cruel and unusual punishment. No one is sentence to continuous assaults for decades. The prison can and will be sued and it could raise a constitutional issue. If prisons just allowed whatever to happen then PREA would not be a thing.
As someone who was in prison, sex stuff is usually agreed to. Fights do happen a lot but it’s usually two people arguing or drug related. Punishments vary but it’s usually not good so people don’t want to fight unless they don’t care. People do care about extra time. Everyone stays quiet anyway. People lie all the time about why they’re in and unless you’re annoying or in people’s faces then you’re usually safe. A sex offender might get shunned or treated like shit but not all the time and they are usually separated into other sex offenders. There are also A LOT of sex offenders so they often have a place or section of their own. I saw a lot of jokes and minor threats about rape but never saw anything in person, dudes did do stuff here and there but it was voluntary. It’s not gay if you’re in prison is what was said. If it’s a high profile crime you might get some shit but you’ll probably be separated anyway.
The rape elimination act ended most of that? Conservatively, between 1986 & 2006, as many as 1M inmates were documented to have been sexually assaulted.
I think you’re projecting a bit on how you’d like to imagine prisons operate.
PREA is mostly an information gathering mechanism.
I’m not projecting anything. By law inmates cannot consent to sex so any sexual encounter is considered rape. This includes encounters between inmates and guards. Forced sexual encountered between inmates is not common anymore.
Also I do not have any experience with higher level federal facilities like Mediums or High security but I assume they are more vigilant.
What I mean by the phrase, “They ask for it” is that they do things and push boundaries with other inmates that lead to the assault.
Example: I knew a guy who would always talk about his crime even after he was told to shut the fuck up about it. He was also proud of how he taught his young daughters how to give a bj. His cellies hated him, the cops hated him, most other sex offenders hated him because they wanted to move on and he wanted to stay back. He found his way into solitary.
Suing Trump is a perfectly balanced activity with no exploits. Today, I present to you a gloriously devious infinite money glitch that shall render our wallets fuller than a royal treasury on a binge! Prepare yourselves for a fiscal frenzy the likes of which the political world has never seen!
Doubling down is the only thing he knows how to do. It’s how he avoided impeachments and has delayed his criminal trials. Looks like the civil acts are finally starting to catch up though. He’s already posted one bond. He can’t keep doing this forever.
It’s also how he’s avoided civil trials and paying judgments in the past. Keep denying, keep denying, ever onwards, and eventually the court will give up because they’re tired, the plaintiff is tired, and nobody wants to deal with you screeching “no I didn’t do it” for the 843rd time.
That would require literally everyone involved to be impossibility stupid. The only way that could possibly work is if every single GOP politician had the intelligence of a spoilt grape fruit. What I’m saying is that I expect the GOP to be liquidated by this time next year.
Sadly while there are certainly plenty of absolute dumbasses in the GOP, and every one of them is a shitstain that barely qualifies as a human being, there are quite a few of them that are incredibly conniving. If they spent half as much effort trying to actually improve the world as they spent trying to rat fuck everyone for their own profit most problems would have been solved by now. While this will certainly hurt them badly I expect enough of the cockroaches will skitter away that this won’t actually destroy the GOP…
They don’t care what happens to the party as long as they personally profit. If they gave a fuck about their own party they wouldn’t have allowed the Tea Party dumbasses in, let alone Donald.
It would be hilarious if Trump bankrupted the GOP.
Probably won’t get that far, but if nothing else it means they have less money to spend on all the smaller local candidate races, which are arguably mode impactful long-term.
The judge compared Littlejohn’s actions to those of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, noting that, “your actions were also a threat to our democracy.”
Because stealing and releasing tax documents is the same thing as attempting to violently overthrow the government.
“Trust in the system” is a resource that needs managing. If the contractor got off lightly, it would erode the trust people have that the IRS will manage their information.
Let alone the fact that a light sentence for a guy who leaked the administration’s foe’s information would be incredibly corrupt
So the judge is in with trump. Hope none of his cases go that guys way.
Like yeah, he broke the law and needed to be punished. But it wasn't government secrets, which i'm pretty sure is already legally coded separately from this guys crimes, and also neither of which are treason, which would be the capital attack.
So the guy blatantly spoke against his own legal experience for a political swing.
She was appointed by Joe Biden and is an immigrant to this country from Uruguay. I don’t think she’s a Trump sycophant, I think she’s just a lawful pedant and a fan of hyperbole.
I was going to argue that the attack on the Capitol (though your spelling may more accurately reflect real life) was not treason. No enemies were afforded aid or comfort.
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.” [emphasis mine]
Now I’m rethinking my life. How could I have been so wrong about such a pivotal event in my life?!
(For any of your assholes thinking I’m a 01/06 sympathizer or apologist, I doubt you personally know anymore more angry. Given my druthers, I’d ask the court to impose the death penalty and carry it out personally. And I’m not some angry, young, keyboard warrior talking. I’ve thought on this much.)
Think about this for a second: a Supreme Court justice thinks NO ONE has the power to hold them to an ethical standard. I can think of no better reason to hold them to an ethical standard than that.
Exactly. Checks and balances motherfucker! We need to swing the scales back into balance so hard. He and Thomas are launched into orbit and never heard from again. Run over by an orbiting Tesla.
Yeah really, if a justice literally says checks and balances don’t exist, maybe we should listen and respond accordingly. Also maybe we should fire him, and most of the others.
Congress already has a check against SCOTUS, impeachment. Alito is actually probably right here. It would take a constitutional amendment to create a new lever for congress to pull.
Which is complete ass because it will never happen. That document is a failure in the 21st century and is holding us back.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.