Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42009
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. He apparently started out pretty liberal according to his bio. After graduating Richmond and then Pace (very mid) law school, he worked as a public defender in Florida and then as a federal public defender. A PD that gives a shit will work pretty hard just because of the caseload. He probably gave a shit as a state public defender or they wouldn't have hired him as a federal public defender, where shit-ass pleading of clients is not an accepted practice. So, it seems in his early career, he worked pretty hard and for less than awesome pay (compared to a white shoe firm for example). Then he got on the political grift, including political appointments where he learned he could just sit around and talk shit and get paid pretty decent wages. The FBI director job is making him work again, despite his efforts to turn it into a years-long Vegas vacation. That and his underqualification for the job probably explain his recent expressions.
  2. Republicans are so used to rationalizing what are ultimately racially motivated policies that once they started saying the quiet part out loud they don't even see it.
  3. And, whatever nuance may be behind the things Kirk said, the way he says them, e.g. "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously" and countless other examples doesn't permit that nuance. And, I'm pretty sure he knew that and did it mostly on purpose. If he didn't, then he sure slipped into racism easily. Like "The Cowboys are so easy to hate." Ok fine, I hate them, or more specifically Jerrah and what he made them, but the reasons for hating the Cowboys are manifold. Fans could be one of them. But why he immediately segued to short Mexicans in jorts boggles the mind if you are trying to assert that he isn't a racist.
  4. I'd actually guess he pleads. Probably also assume they withdraw death penalty in return for the plea. And if they don't withdraw the death penalty, he still gets a penalty-phase "trial," where upbringing, motive. mental health, indoctrination and such will get a lot more play than at a guilt-phase trial. And that may not be something the government really wants to get into.
  5. Yes first. I have a hungry, noisy cat waking me up in the middle of the night, so I wasn't in super-clear mind. But long story short, he said it's not "illegal speech," but the university can't ignore it. Well, yes, actually, the First Amendment requires a government entity to ignore "legal speech."
  6. To elaborate on this, I kind of assume you true crimers are skeptical of a single source of information that cites unnamed sources and is generally pretty vague. Even if that single source gets repeated on dozens or hundreds of sites that maybe initially looks like corroboration, but on closer scrutiny just cites that single source and changes the wording around to make it look like a different, "corroborating" report. Then you combine that with the single source being a) pretty much proven liars b) lying in service of an agenda and administration. Then you have something to be very skeptical of. And, as for the FBI, normally they and DOJ lawyers wouldn't comment much on evidence gathered prior to court proceedings that mandate disclosure. And, it's a valid point that they may not have "unlocked" the forensic/computer evidence yet. Of course, this FBI is anything but normal and wouldn't seem likely to observe prior norms. And, the very thing that makes it abnormal is politicization and the performative clown that is the Director. So, it's not unreasonable to read into this FBI's silence on matters. And to assume that if they had motive evidence that fit their narrative or could be twisted to do so, they'd be yelling it from the rooftops.
  7. According to this, pretty accurate https://www.newsweek.com/farmers-are-struggling-under-donald-trump-2128104 And unsurprising, first because farm = rural. And, in a microcosm of rurality, extremely resistant to change and progress and in love with some mythic agrarian ideal that disappeared more than a century ago and despite all the evidence indicating they need to find something else to do. Also, an almost complete dependence on government for their existence, that they somehow refuse to acknowledge.
  8. You had nothing to add about 713 posts ago. monomania /mŏn″ə-mā′nē-ə, -mān′yə/ noun Pathological obsession with one idea or subject. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea. Derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only; also, such a concentration of interest upon one particular subject or train of ideas to show mental derangement.
  9. It was a complete mutilation of Second Amendment law. The government can only regulate speech, that is, impose consequences like expulsion from school, when that speech is in a very narrow category of criminal or illegal speech. Otherwise they have to leave us the fuck alone. It's not a matter of opinion.
  10. As a general proposition, most of us are looking at evidence and theories from an evidentiary standpoint: is it accurate, can it be proven, is it "corroborated."
  11. They have to charge a capital offense first. And doing so will be a stretch. This is the Utah homicide statute and it makes capital a number of forms of murder that probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S202.html?v=C76-5-S202_2025050720250507 The only one factually even potentially applicable is the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor;
  12. Generally speaking, the indictment is presented and read to the defendant, the defendant pleads, and an initial bail determination made. The indictment contains sufficient evidentiary facts typically to support that there is probable cause that a crime was committed and not much more. The prosecution wants as few facts as it can get away with and wants nothing that cannot be easily proven. There is some variance among the various states, one of the main variants being whether a plea is taken at the first appearance or a later arraignment.
  13. Above, I dissected his quote about black airline pilots, which, taken by itself, is disgusting. But his "broader" argument is that affirmative action, specifically preferences, has CREATED that doubt by creating a perception that less-talented minorities get jobs in place of more-qualified whites. That's a highly debatable proposition and ignores the very real possibility that without preferences, and "DEI" in the military, there'd be no perception because there would be no black airline pilots. But that's sophistry covering the essential racism of the basic position, that a dirty nagger can't possibly be an airline pilot. As revealed pretty clearly here:
  14. How so? I think I agree with you, but I'm interested in your reasoning. To me, the problem is the fundamental incompatibility of religion, practiced authentically, and politics. It's not just the election part, but the actual governing part, as well. Talarico is trying to run a Christ-like, or more Christ-like. campaign than the alleged Christians, but without invoking Christ by name. I applaud the notion in the abstract, but I think it's going to be a tough go.
  15. Careless People is an interesting read. It seems Zuckerberg can rationalize anything as promoting FB's alleged goal of global connectivity.
  16. Well, us lefties are vewwy vewwy dangerous.
  17. Well, Trump made that real easy. I don't have to go samesies to figure out for whom to vote. Not trying to start a fight here, but Catholics are responsible for a lot of what's going on here. From the dumbass Opus Dei types, to Leonard Leo, to some intellectuals like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vandermeule. This is a must listen to understand where some of the alt-right policies are coming from https://freakonomics.com/podcast/has-america-lost-its-appetite-for-the-common-good/. There are actual underpinnings to this shit that aren't 100% bigotry. It's far too subtle for most of the right wing voters. Also, for someone who holds these views and is pretty influential, this is a great demonstration of civil discourse. He manages to avoid outrageous statements, acknowledges when things may be controversial, and things of that nature. Also, he has refused almost all media/interview requests, notably not Freakonomics, and is a bit perturbed at how the WSJ recently wrote about him. It's not an accident that these common-gooders are Catholic and working from Catholic universities.
  18. Seems quite plausible. OSU was stoutish competition, hyped at least, nerves, and expectations. He thought he'd shake it off against a creampuff and it didn't happen, and expectations and the reality of QB1 without a suitable fill-in started to hit, bingo-bango here we are. It feels to me like he's kind of rushing throws, not because of pass rush, or even serious problems with reads, but like "ok here it is, whip it out NOW" and maybe that's leading to mechanical issues.
  19. Tech or not, he's 20-something. A 20-something can drink like a fucking fish and still be about 90%+ functional. IYKYK. And really, most of us know.
  20. It's being pumped by a number of state legislators, so it's certainly their interpretation of the curriculum law.
  21. Well counselor, you may be getting a DM from me. Keep an eye out. Well, it's not my area, but I am familiar with the law on it. And, in the law that made the government can fire for otherwise protected expression, there was some "dictum" about teachers presenting a separate question not addressed. I shudder to think how this Court might resolve that.
  22. ztejas has us standing tall before the man.
  23. To be fair, we really don't have data on such things for a huge part of our history. But the fundamental mistake is that any number much greater than ONE wrongful execution is significant without anymore context.
  24. To fire a public employee for expression that is unrelated to work, there still has to be some nexus to the work environment, meaning the effect of the speech in question has to make the job harder for others in some way or otherwise adversely affect the work environment. So, the firing authorities will have to turn it into something work related in a pretextual fashion. "Reprehensible and irresponsible" is a rather poor job of framing it that way ahead of time. At least that's the way it was under oldlaw, and oldlaw was mostly made by reactionaries in this case, but not these particular reactionaries. Of course, the current reactionaries aren't very good with oldlaw, but they're also getting mulligans from SCOTUS, so . . . . .
  25. Posting this separately from the above. This is a Freakonomics show featuring Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame professor that is an advocate of "common good." Perhaps not him specifically, but his writings underpin a lot of the right-wing authoritarian movement and provide a non-selfish justification for some of the shit that's going down. and He makes some very valid observations about problems with our "democratic experiment," some forewarned at the founding. But his proposed solutions are . . . distasteful. So, this is a guy that could be massively controversial and also provides intellectual underpinnings to some of the P2025/alt-right crew, like people claim was Charlie Kirk. But he's not. And listen to him talking to Steven Dubner on Freakonomics. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/has-america-lost-its-appetite-for-the-common-good/ Compare and contrast with Charlie Kirk. And, seriously, if you aren't familiar with "common good," listen to that.
×
×
  • Create New...